FAMILY ALLOWANCES BILL. (Hansard, 13 June 1945)

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON)
My Lords, your Lordships discussed three years ago the question of instituting a family allowances scheme. The principles of the Bill now before your Lordships' House are so much in accord with the kind of scheme then advocated that lengthy arguments commending the principles of this Bill seem to me to be unnecessary now. The 568 Family Allowances Bill is a first step in the Government's mighty programme of social insurance legislation. It is designed to fit into the new national insurance scheme outlined in Part I of the White Paper on Social Insurance and in broad outline it is a scheme that has already been welcomed by your Lordships. The object of the Bill is to provide a measure of cash assistance from public funds so that the burden of rearing the next generation may not be too heavy for the individual parents and may be shared by the whole community.
In essence the scheme is simple. There will be allowances for all families with children. The allowance will be at the rate of 5s. per week for each child in the family except the first, and the cost of providing for the allowances will be met from the Exchequer funds. It has been urged in some quarters that the allowance should be paid for all children, and in some quarters it has been suggested that the allowances might be higher, but, my Lords, it is not the intention of the scheme that parents should be relieved by the State of all financial responsibility for the bringing up of their children. There is no allowance payable for the first child of the family, because it was considered that family earnings should enable the parents to provide adequately for the first child without any cash assistance from public funds. It, however, the breadwinner is on benefit, is out of work, sick for example, then under the new national insurance scheme provision will be made for the first child. Further assistance will come in the development of school meals and milk services, which the Government propose to extend and make available free of cost for all children attending grant-aided schools.
When fully developed these services in kind will cost the community about £60,000,000 a year. Over 2,500,000 families will be eligible for the allowances; they will be payable for 4,500,000 children. It is estimated that the cost of the cash allowances will be in the neighbourhood of £57,000,000 a year, and that the cost of administration will be about £2,000,000 a year. The whole of these burdens will fall on the Exchequer. Children will be included in the family for allowances so long as they are under the school-leaving age, and after that age until their sixteenth birthday if they are undergoing full-time 569 instruction in school or are apprentices. Where children continue at school after the age of sixteen, the Government's view is that assistance can best be provided by educational grants. There will be no differentiation between children of the family and adopted children, or between legitimate and illegitimate children. All will be eligible for allowances on the same basis. In addition to their own children who are living with them, parents will be able to claim allowances for any of their children elsewhere towards whose maintenance they are contributing 5s. a week or more. They will also be able to include in their family for allowances any other child maintained by them, as also will any other person, so long as the child's parent or parents are not contributing a least 5s. a week cowards the child's maintenance.
There has been a great deal of discussion in another place and of course among the public outside, as to whether allowances should be paid to the father or the mother. In another place the view was taken that allowances should belong to the mother, and that is a decision which I think it is not likely that this House will want to reverse. It is a decision which, on a vote in another place, the Government adopted. The Bill now before the House provides that the allowances belong to the mother, but takes account of the convenience of the parents by securing that either the father or the mother will be able to take the order book to the Post Office and cash the allowances. In many families it might well be an irritation and restriction if only one parent was entitled to go to the Post Office and cash the allowances. The Bill also makes provision for those difficult cases where one parent may be unsatisfactory and not, in fact, a proper person to draw the allowances for the family. Either the lather or the mother or the Minister or the local authority is empowered to make representations to a court of summary jurisdiction that either parent is not a proper recipient of allowances for the family, and the court may then order that the allowances should be paid to one parent to the exclusion of the other.
All claims for allowances will be made to the Minister of National Insurance, and will be decided by him. There will, however, be an appeal from the Minister's decision to a Court of Referees. The referees have the power to state a case 570 for the opinion of the High Court so that on a difficult point of law the matter can be taken to the Court and decided there. Broadly, this is the procedure under the Contributory Pensions Act, and in fact it is working well in practice. We do not propose that allowances should be paid to residential institutions. The Bill is not designed to meet the needs of those children who have been deprived of family life, and while their needs are great they must be met in other ways. This Bill is concerned with family life and the child deprived of family life cannot be fitted into this picture. All parents who are British subjects, and born in the United Kingdom, will be eligible for the allowances, but this does not mean that other families who have made their homes in this country will not be eligible for the allowances. The Bill provides that the Minister may make regulations prescribing conditions as to residence, nationality, etc., to be satisfied in other cases, and it is intended that all persons who have made their homes here, and who have become regular members of this community, should be eligible for the allowances.
In a scheme of this kind, where the funds are being provided by the British taxpayer, it is only right that the benefits of the scheme should be available only to those who are, in fact, members of our community. But provision has been made to enable the Minister to make reciprocal arrangements with other parts of the Commonwealth and Empire where similar schemes are in operation. The Government of Northern Ireland, for example, have informed us that they intend to put forward a Bill very much on the lines of this Bill. If that is done, the Minister will be able to make reciprocal arrangements with Northern Ireland, and the allowances will be payable by one Government or the other according to whether the children are in this country or in Northern Ireland.
Clause 13 deals with children's allowances payable as a part of workmen's compensation, unemployment benefit, or contributory widows' pensions. This is a purely transitory provision; it provides for the interim period when family allowances may be paid before the new and comprehensive insurance plan comes into force. The clause looks forward to that plan. Under the clause, as under the proposed insurance plan, the benefit for the 571 first child of the family will be paid as part of the benefit in question (workmen's compensation, unemployment benefit or widows' pensions), and provision for all other children will be made under the family allowance scheme.
Clause 14 deals with allowances for the children of members of the Armed Forces, and of war pensioners, and of civilians compensated for war injuries or war deaths. It makes it clear that in one way or another these classes will, pending a revision of the scale of allowances, receive family allowances, or their equivalent, on top of what they are now getting. For example, while the present structure of Service pay is in being, the soldier will get the equivalent of family allowances from Service funds or else family allowances in the ordinary way. If the Service Departments do in fact provide him with the equivalent of family allowances on top of what he is now getting, this clause enables the Minister of National Insurance to bring forward regulations withholding the payment of family allowances under this Bill; but if the structure of Service pay and allowances is later revised, on the footing that the soldier is a citizen and due to enjoy the benefits of family allowances in the ordinary way, and the Treasury issue a certificate to this effect, the power to make these regulations is to lapse and the soldier will get these allowances under the Family Allowances Act. Subsection (2) of this clause applies the same principle to allowances to the children of war pensioners or of civilians injured or killed as a result of enemy action.
It only remains for me to say a few words about the date of operation of the scheme. The scheme involves, as I have indicated, millions of families and still more millions of children. To bring it into operation will be a very considerable task. A staff must be recruited, trained and accommodated, in times of great shortage of staff. This task is already in hand, but it must be some time before the new scheme can be launched. The date of operation is to be appointed by the Minister, but I can say that the Government are pressing forward with the work as speedily as possible under present conditions. I hope that I have said enough at this stage to commend the Second Reading of this Bill to you. I 572 think that it is unnecessary for mg to say more, because I know that your Lordships are already fully acquainted with the Bill. I therefore beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

§ LORD SOUTHWOOD
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I rise to support the general principles behind this Bill. The struggle for the payment of children's allowances has been a long one, and one in which members of all Parties have participated; no single Party can or will claim exclusive credit for the gratifying fact that this Bill is now within sight of the Statute Book. I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot give us the date on which the scheme will start, though I quite see the difficulties; but we hope that no time will be lost, and that we can look forward to it being put into effect certainly within the next twelve months. In a very true sense, this measure is a real object-lesson in how the Legislature can give concrete form to the general will on great human questions. It provides for the payment to the mother of 5s. a week in respect of each child after the first. I emphasize payment to the mother, because in a speech which I had the honour to make in this House just three years ago I specially pleaded for this, and I well remember how greatly I appreciated the support which I received from the then Archbishop of Canterbury and from many others in this House.
This measure is only a beginning; it is not in its final form, but it is a beginning which raises many hopes for the future. Five shillings a week, in our submission, is by no means an adequate sum, especially in view of the greatly increased cost of living. To-day 5s. cannot buy more than 3s. 3d. bought in 1938. My authority for saying that is a statement by Sir John Anderson a short time ago. We hope, therefore, that as soon as conditions permit the amount will be made more in keeping with real family needs. We also hope that the time will come when the scheme will include the first child as well. In the earlier stages of the passage of the Bill through another place, much discontent was expressed in all quarters at the prospect of the families of Service men not being granted this 5s. allowance. This discontent has been removed by the 573 Government's recognition that the children's allowances paid through the Service Departments are in fact pay. I submit that it should be an early task of the new Government to put the pay of the Fighting Services on a new and proper basis.
With regard to the recipients of workmen's compensation, the outlook is better because of the Industrial Injuries Bill. This appears to be a substantial, advance on the White Paper proposals. In respect of other categories, sun as the unemployed and certain sections of widows, the situation is far from clear, and my noble friends on these Benches will welcome any elucidation which the noble Lord opposite can give to the House on behalf of His Majesty's Government. In the meantime, we welcome the declaration by the Minister of National Insurance that "every family in Great Britain will benefit, whether tie breadwinner be at work or not." It of great importance that the Bill should be presented for the Royal Assent without any delay, and no time Should be lost in the setting up of the administrative machinery—a Very considerable task—necessary for the payment of these allowances. This measure is, of course, only one part of the picture of social insurance, and we must now await the whole plan. On behalf of my noble friends, however, with the reservations which I have mentioned, I welcome this great human measure, which destined to contribute so much to the welfare and to the happiness of the nation.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
My Lords, there was some anxiety lest this Bill should unfortunately be lost, in the hurry of the ending of Parliament, in what is usually called "the massacre of the innocents." We are particularly glad that this particular innocent has nor suffered, and that the Bill now reaches your Lordships on the way to the Statute Book. This is undoubtedly a great and beneficent reform. It has long been known, on the authority of those who analyze our social statistics, that the greatest single cause of poverty among the people is the maintenance of children, and that the periods in the life of a family when there are young children to bring up are those which put the heaviest economic burden upon the parents. To a greater 574 extent than any other cause, the maintenance of children leads to those who are below the poverty line being in that position. Those who fulfil the social duty of furnishing families for the continuance of the nation are penalized by being called on to bear very heavy sacrifices. Now the State, recognizing this, comes to their assistance by means of these allowances. They may be expected to have a useful and beneficent effect upon the birth-rate, which is already showing some small signs of revival.
With regard to the particular provisions of the Bill, there has been considerable controversy in another place on two of the points mentioned by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill here. On both of them the Government very wisely have given way. One was the payment of the allowance to the mother, which has long been advocated; the other was the point that the members of the Services should not lose the family allowances because they already have other allowances for their families on other grounds. On both those points there was divergence of opinion between the Government and the majority, apparently, of the House of Commons, and we are glad that the right solution has been reached in both cases. My noble friend Lord Southwood said he hoped that no Party would claim an exclusive right to the credit for this measure. No, I do not think any Party claims the exclusive right, but there is one Party, the Liberal Party, which may claim the right of priority, since for a number of years, when no other Party took an interest in the subject or were prepared to sponsor it, the Liberal Party included it in its official programme. The Labour Party, although undoubtedly their sympathies were in favour of the principle, were debarred from taking effective action by the fact that some of the principal trade unions took an unfavourable view of the proposal, for reasons into which I need not enter. However, now we are all at one, and although we regard this Bill as our own legitimate child, we are very pleased to think that it should also be adopted by others.