§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how much of the weekly National Insurance Benefit now paid to a widowed mother can be kept by her, irrespective of earnings, and how this compares with the position in 1951.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN)My Lords, at present 63s. 6d. of a widowed mother's National Insurance benefit is not affected by her earnings if she has one child, and 93s. if she has two children. In October, 1951, the corresponding amounts were 10s. and 12s. 6d.
LORD GRENFELLMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his most welcome Answer, I should like to ask him whether, if a widowed mother has to pay someone to look after her children while she is at work, this expenditure is taken into account in the operation of the earnings rule?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNYes, my Lords.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is talking about sums given thirteen years ago? Has he taken into account the change in the value of the pound? So that we can see these figures in a proper perspective, may I also ask whether he is aware that the average wage of a single man to-day is £16 a week?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, yes, I am aware of that; but the comparison itself is rather striking. If I may call 808 attention once again to this fact, at present it is 63s. 6d. of the widowed mother's National Insurance benefit which is not affected by her earnings, as against 10s., if she has one child; and, if she has two children, 93s., against 12s. 6d. As to the second part of the question, dealing with the amounts that are currently earned, I think that the House would like to know that a widowed mother whose benefit is payable at the minimum rate must have net earnings of at least £9 12s. 0d. a week, so that her total income, taking into account the amount she receives as National Insurance benefit, would then be £12 15s. 6d.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, I should still like to ask the noble Lord to bear in mind what I have just said—this pinpoints my question—that these widows have all sorts of responsibilities, and the single man gets £16 a week. Can the noble Lord also explain to the House why it is that this woman, who works outside the house, has her earnings taken into account, while the wealthy widow who has her pension supplemented by, let us say, dividends, has not any earnings rule applied to her?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, to deal with the second part of the question, this is of course in line with the 1946 Act, which was carried into effect by the Party opposite and has remained ever since.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMay I ask the noble Lord to recall that in 1946, which is nearly twenty years ago, the principles of the Insurance Act were laid down because it was anticipated that there would be more unemployment than eventuated, and therefore it was felt that those whose pensions were supplemented should be penalised in a small way. Now, of course, it has been proved that there is virtually no unemployment; in fact, last week we were told that there is full employment. Therefore, the principle on which this provision was based in 1946 just does not apply to-day.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I do not quite see the relevance of that observation to this particular Question. The noble Lady raised the question of the average wage, and mentioned what is paid to the single man. It is, of course, paid to the married man who is earning the average wage. But we all 809 know that a great many people are earning less than that. and if a widow who is receiving only the minimum and is subject to the earnings rule receives £12 15s 6d., she is in fact receiving more in some cases than her husband received when he was alive.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, would my noble friend draw attention to the noble Baroness's tribute to the Conservative Party that there is no unemployment at the present time, and her confession that when she was a Minister in 1946 it was anticipated that under the Labour Government there would be large-scale unemployment?
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, would not the Minister agree that that was because the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 adopted something which entirely avoided the enormous unemployment created by the neglectful Tory Government in 1918?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, what my noble friend drew attention to was the fact that the Labour Party did not know that they were going to do that in 1946, and based their calculations on the supposition that they would not.