144.

MAJORITY REPORT.

either the father or the mother would not be justifiable economically,
 and in particular would tend to absorb a large part, if not
the whole of the margin in the women’s contribution for the
advantage of the small minority of insured women who are
married, and whose claims already impose a heavy burden on
the contributions of the whole body of insured women. We
think, therefore, that in all cases children should be regarded as
dependent upon the father only, and that dependent children’s
allowances should not be paid from the mother’s insurance where
both she and her husband are insured persons.

322. We think that the case for dependants’ benefits would
be reasonably met and that Societies would be relieved of the
necessity of making undesirable inquiry into family circumstances
 if provision is made on the basis that if the insured man
is married 2s. a week is to be added to Sickness Benefit in respect
of his wife and 2s. in respect of each child under 14, and if he is
a widower, and has dependent children, 2s. is to be added to the
weekly sum payable in respect of these children. The addition
to disablement benefit would be 1s. a week in each case.

323. With regard to the case of widows with dependent
children, we have considered the possibility that in view of our
recommendation to grant in the case of widowers an allowance
additional to the children’s allowances, a similar concession
would be claimed on behalf of insured widows. We think,
however, that as the widow will, in virtue of her husband’s
insurance, be usually in receipt of a pension under the new
Widows’ Pensions Scheme, she has no strong claim on the ground
of need to this allowance, while we are averse to making a
further addition (for which all insured women must contribute)
to the heavy increase of benefit which children’s allowances will
represent in the case of a very small class among the women in
insurance. In the case of widows, we accordingly suggest that
the allowance for dependants should be 2s. a week for each
dependent child in the case of sickness benefit and 1s. a week in
the case of disablement benefit.

324. In the case of the insured woman whose husband is
uninsured, we have come to the conclusion that the principle
to which we have already referred, viz., that the husband must
be regarded as responsible for the children, must be adhered to,
especially as this principle was definitely accepted by Parliament
 after full discussion on the Widows’, Orphans’ and Old Age
Contributory Pensions Bill. We feel, moreover, that it would
be inequitable to discriminate between the uninsured and insured
husband, and to give the former an advantage over the latter.
For these reasons we suggest that where the husband is living
and uninsured, dependent children’s allowances should not be
paid from the wife’s insurance.