§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON rose to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the inadequacy of the present provision for widows' pensions; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, there is a section of a community in England, a small community, with which, from the nature of its circumstances, I think we must all have sympathy and understanding. That section comprises the widows; the widows both of working men and the widows, also, of men in the Armed Forces—the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force. To-day the plight of many of these widows is truly pitiable. I have known of cases, and I have seen letters concerning many more, which show only too clearly how difficult it is for the widow to-day to buy the bare necessities for her livelihood. The cost of living has risen considerably; prices have gone up and cheap goods have, in many cases, disappeared, or else have been strictly limited by rationing. But the widows' pension, the pension of 1os. a week—a low figure in any case—has remained the same, and until the widow attains the age of 60 years she is ineligible for, and she has no means of obtaining, a supplementary pension.
§ I should like your Lordships to consider for a moment the position of a widow living on 1os. a week and, it may be, perhaps, paying 3s. or 4s. a week for rent, so that she has 6s. or 7s. remaining. With that remaining 6s. or 7s. a week she has to buy food and pay for light and fuel and such things as soap and matches—the necessities for living—and repairs to clothing. A shilling a day must cover all these. It is not very much when we consider the difficulties, the scarcity of 366 so many commodities and the steep rise in prices which there has definitely been. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to read one or two extracts from letters which I have received and which, I think, show the position and the problems of the widow more simply and clearly than anything I can say. I would emphasize here that I am not dealing with, perhaps, the most unfortunate case of all, that is the case of widows who, for some reason or other, are debarred from getting the pension. There are many such cases. Some of them arise because a husband has not paid full contributions under the national health insurance scheme. The other day I heard of the case of a man who had paid 103 contributions and died before paying the 104th, so that his widow was denied the pension. One understands that the line must be drawn somewhere, but there is a considerable number of cases of terrible hardship in respect of widows who for some reason or other cannot obtain any pension at all.
§
I am dealing here, however, with the case of the widow under the national health insurance scheme where contributions have been fully paid. This is one extract:
I am fifty-six, and not able to go out to work owing to heart and chest troubles. I wish I could work; it is terrible to have to worry how to pay your way in these days. Surely the widows' pensions could be raised, as the cost of living is so high.
Another widow writes:
I am a widow on 10s. a week. I am unable to do any kind of work because my legs are bad. My age is fifty-six. I do not know how to exist on such a small allowance.
And another writes:
I am a widow for fourteen years and am forty-three years of age. I receive 10s. a week, and have been trying to get work both in the factories and even land work. I keep going to the employment office every week and can get no work. I am hard of hearing.
Such cases can, unfortunately, be multiplied almost indefinitely. I have a case here of a widow who has to pay a rent of 6s. a week and who has a pension of only 1os. a week. That, of course, is outside the scope of this, but I think it illustrates the tremendous difficulties which widows have to face in these days.
§ It must be remembered that there is an allowance for the widow who has children—5s., I think, for the first child, and 3s. for each of the other children. This 367 allowance, however, stops when a child leaves school at fourteen, or at the most sixteen, years of age, and the widow may even have to support that child as long as the child is looking for employment. Thereafter until the age of sixty she will have to support herself on 1os. a week. It will have been noticed from the extracts which I have read that the tendency—and I think that it is a general tendency—is for the widow to try to get work if she can, but often she cannot do so, and in some cases she is too old or too ill or too feeble even to go to look for work. There is, however, no chance of her receiving a supplementary pension. I feel that your Lordships cannot be totally unmoved by these circumstances, and the question is what can be done. I heartily hope that His Majesty's Government will do something to alleviate this suffering and distress. I should like to learn that there would be a general increase in all widows' pensions; but, even if His Majesty's Government will not undertake to do this, could not widows under sixty years of age be brought under the supplementary pensions scheme?
§ It has been argued, I know, that, if an increase were made in the pensions for widows, the widows would not be so inclined to look for work, and that in these days everyone who can work must do so. I should like to remind your Lordships, however, that in the supplementary pensions scheme there is a very rigid means test, which is always, I understand, very thoroughly applied. The circumstances are investigated, and I do not think there would be any danger of a widow being granted an extra pension if there was work that she could obtain. On the other hand, there are many cases of definite hardship which could be eased and helped by this supplementary pension. Another argument brought forward against increasing the pension is that in these days neither the employer nor the employee can afford an increased contribution; but could not this point be met by a greater contribution from the State? Compared with the almost astronomical figures which our national expenditure has now reached, it seems to me that the relatively small amount required to cover widows' pensions under the supplementary scheme could not be grudged, in view of the amount of suffering which is now being 368 caused, and which could be relieved, and in view of the apprehensions which are now felt and which could be taken away from thousands who might any day, through no fault of their own, find themselves in these tragic circumstances.
§ There is one other class that I should like to mention. That comprises the widows of men who served in the Armed Forces and who have died or been killed, but whose death is not directly attributable to enemy action, nor accepted by the Ministry of Pensions as due to their service. Here I think it is very hard to draw the line between deaths due to Service conditions and those which would have happened in any case. Where death is due to illness, for example, there is the question of whether Service conditions have caused this illness or whether the man would have developed it in any case. There is the question of whether the hardship of his conditions added the extra strain which brought on his illness. It is an extremely difficult line to draw when so important a question is concerned as that of whether the widow is eligible for a pension or not. For instance, a man returning on leave may be killed at the entrance to the barracks by a lorry. Presumably his widow would not be eligible for a pension, as his death was not due to Service causes. I have an actual case here of a man in the Merchant Navy who served during the whole of the last war, who was torpedoed and commended for gallantry, and who fell over the quayside in Dunkirk in the autumn of 1939 during the black-out and was drowned. I understand it was assumed that his death was not due to Service causes. This seems to be extremely unfair on the widow.
§ I should like to see it laid down that in the case of men who have been called up or conscribed and who are serving in His Majesty's Forces, should they die while in the Forces their widows would be eligible for a Service pension. It must be remembered that these men are taken com-pulsorily from every class and from every occupation—small business men, tradesmen, professional men and so on. By being taken into the Forces they often lose a great deal financially; their business suffers, or they lose their employment. In some cases they cannot go on saving money, as they may have been doing before, and sometimes they are not even able to continue paying their national 369 health insurance contribution. But these men whose widows would be victimized are, after all, serving their country; they are doing their duty, and are prepared to risk death and disablement. I submit that the very least we can do is to allow the widows of men who have been killed to have an ordinary Service pension.
§ I should like to remind your Lordships once again that the widows whose cause I have been pleading are a very helpless class of people. Suddenly, through no fault of their own, they lose their husbands, who have died or been killed. They have been used ail their lives to looking after their homes, probably doing it very well. They may have no reserve resources, and yet they have suddenly to turn round, possibly at an advanced age, with no experience of obtaining work or fitting themselves for a different kind of employment, and build up a new life and a new home of their own. People are not always too anxious to employ perhaps rather feeble older women in the fifties, and these women find it exceedingly hard to make both ends meet. They are of a class who cannot bargain, nor can they demonstrete. They have very little chance of pleading their cause, and I submit that this gives me even greater reason to look for active sympathy and help in endeavouring to remedy their position. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD FARINGDONMy Lords, I desire only to add a few words in support of my noble friend's Motion. I know that it is generally objected, to any request for an increase in the size of widows' pensions, that, since these are contributory pensions, it would be necessary to raise the amount of contribution; and, though it would be possible to increase the Government's contribution without increasing that of the employer or of the husband of the eventual beneficiary, that, I understand, would be quite unprecedented. It has always been the rule that the Government's contribution should be exactly equivalent to the contribution of the employer and the employed. But this is an objection that does not apply to supplementary pensions, and I cannot believe that the granting of a supplementary pension to this class, which is, I think, the only section of the socially insured who have not benefited under the supplementary pension scheme, would present the same difficulty, for the supple- 370 mentary pensions are non-contributory. Moreover, should these widows obtain employment their wages, of course, would be taken into consideration when the pensions were being granted. I hope that the Government may see fit to give a favourable reply.
§ LORD SNELLMy Lords, the question which the noble Earl has raised is of some importance, and it quite naturally arouses the sympathy not only of the House but of the nation generally. I have no intention of under-estimating its importance, nor the way in which the noble Earl has introduced it to the House. In my judgment he presented his case with restraint and cogency, and in a speech full of argument. I regret, however, that, owing to the conditions of your Lordships' House at the present time, I shall have to appear discourteous to the noble Earl by compressing into the very smallest space the reply I would otherwise desire to make. So far as I can gather what the noble Earl asks for is, first of all, that the position of widows, who are now paid 1os. a week, should be reconsidered with a view to increase; secondly, that those under sixty should be brought into the supplementary pensions scheme, the increased cost to be borne by the State; and thirdly, that the case of the widow whose husband dies whilst on leave or in the other circumstances that he mentioned should also be considered.
The noble Earl did something to answer his own questions. He supplied two of the reasons at least why these increased demands could not be met by an increased contribution unless the State decided to make up its own quota. The noble Lord also asked that the cases of those who died on service, or were injured and afterwards died, should be brought under the pensions scheme. That view generally was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon. Perhaps it would be quickest if I very shortly reminded your Lordships of what the present conditions are. First of all, 1os. per week is given to widows of insured men under the Contributory Pensions Act, plus an allowance for children of fourteen or, if a child is at school, up to the age of sixteen, of 5s. per week to the eldest child and 3s. for each other child. The pension ceases if 371 the widow re-marries, but the allowance for the child goes on; otherwise, if the woman does not re-marry, it is continued until seventy years of age, when it is automatically replaced by an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Act of 1936. These sums are payable without regard to means.
Thus it appears that the widow pensioner under sixty has a basic pension of 1os., with allowances for children; whilst at sixty or over she is also eligible for a supplementary pension. The supplementary pension, if it is asked for as a question of need, has to go through the Assistance Board. If the appeal is successful the award is on a scale which accords with the relevant regulations, which have been approved by Parliament and which govern these matters. The effect of it would be to bring the widow's income up to 19s. 6d. per week, subject to an adjustment for rent if the widow is living alone, and rather less if she is living in someone else's house. There may also be additions to children's allowances under special circumstances. In regard to the circumstances of war pensions, provision has been made to meet these needs based upon established principles. For instance, the woman must have been married to the deceased man before the receipt of the disability. Death must have been due to, or hastened by, wounds, injuries, or disease attributable to war service. All material considerations are taken into account. Current rates are better than those which followed the Great War, as it is called, although somewhat lower than those fixed for Great War cases in 1919, which were based upon the abnormally high cost of living at that time.
The noble Earl pleaded the case of men who might be killed or injured when home on leave, or in circumstances of that kind. The suggestion there made is that the pension should be paid to every man who is disabled or to the widow of every man who dies during service in the Forces. It would not be possible, according to my instructions, to enlarge the State's liability to this extent, which would, of course, involve a very heavy financial burden, and there can surely be no justification for awarding a pension in respect of some incident which is in no 372 way due to the man's service. So far as injuries and accidents are concerned, however, the Minister takes a very broad view of the circumstances, and does not hesitate to admit a connexion with service in many types of case in which it is really somewhat remote. Moreover, he is at the present time giving further consideration to this subject, as has already been announced in reply to questions in another place.
With regard to disablement or death from disease, while it cannot be denied that there is a small number of borderline cases, it is not a fact that there is any general difficulty in determining the question of connexion with service. The medical officers of the Ministry of Pensions have had years of experience in dealing with this question, and, apart from that, the Minister is always willing to submit the matter to an independent specialist nominated by the President of the Royal College of Physicians or the Royal College of Surgeons when any medical doubt or difficulty is found. In regard to the points put by the noble Earl, if in the case of illness it is found that that illness is due to, or has been materially aggravated by, service, then the pension scheme will operate; but if the man is killed or injured while returning from leave, by a lorry, as has been suggested, it would have to be a case of what is known as "long leave" for the matter to be considered. If he were on what is called "short pass," the present rule is that his widow would not be eligible for pension.
I have tried in the shortest possible way to give an answer to the main points that the noble Earl put before the House. I would only say in conclusion that there have been vast extensions recently of the principle of benefits, and all recent extensions have, of necessity, had to be considered in regard to the contributory position. It may be some satisfaction to the noble Earl to know that the whole question of social insurance is, at the present time, under the consideration of a Committee appointed by the Minister without Portfolio with a view to making, after the war, such modifications and improvements as may appear to be necessary.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble 373 Lord for his attention and for his very thorough answer to my questions. I was glad to hear that the matter is generally under consideration. At the same time I should like to stress the point of the extreme rise in the cost of living in relation to the widow's pension, which has not risen at all. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider the fact and try to see if some means cannot be found 374 to relieve these widows and give them a chance—the more deserving cases under sixty—of receiving some supplementary pension. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House adjourned.