I desire to raise what I consider to be a point of principle regarding the way in which dependants' allowances are assessed. I think that in the formation of the Regulations governing dependants' allowances a point has been overlooked that causes unnecessary hardship in certain cases. It is accepted as a right that a relative in certain prescribed categories authorised under the Regulations, who is dependent on a person called into the Services, shall be entitled to a dependant's allowance, if the income, after various deductions, falls below 23s. per week, or, in the case of one dependant, 26s. per week. The point to which I desire to call the attention of the Minister is that all moneys coming into the home are considered as income, irrespective of their source. I fully agree that under the present Regulations that is correct, but I submit that certain moneys entering into the home are not income in the accepted sense of the word, but are capital income, when it becomes necessary, in order to sustain the home, for a person to withdraw invested capital.

In this respect, cases of capital sums which have been awarded under workmen's compensation fall into two distinct classes. There is the compensation which can 'be invested in a lump sum, and the compensation which is granted in a weekly allowance. In the former case, when the income is assessed for the purposes of a dependant's allowance the interest only on the capital sum is considered. In the other case, if a person is granted workmen's compensation in a weekly sum of, say £1 then £52 is considered as income. This places the two cases in an entirely different category, and in my submission is quite unjust. A person who is able to invest £100 at 3 per cent. is considered to have the 3 per cent. interest as income, but in the case of the person who is granted compensation of £100 which is given to that person at the rate £2 of a week, that £2 per week is considered as income, and entirely debars that person from obtaining a dependant's allowance.

Let me state briefly a case as it actually works out in practice. The widow of a man killed in 1943 by a fall of rock, earning £5 145. a week at the time, was granted partial compensation of £285. At that time an elder son was working in the home, and that was the reason she was granted only partial compensation. But at a later date that son married and made no further contribution. Therefore, it became necessary for her to ask permission of the court for the money to be granted to her in weekly sums. The court granted the compensation at the rate of 23s. a week. She made application for a dependant's allowance when her younger son—who, at the time of his father's death, was only 15 years of age—entered the Services, but she was refused a dependant's allowance because her income was more than 26s. a week. Her income was made up as follows: She had a widow's pension of 10s. a week; her son made her an allotment of 10s. 6d a week: and the compensation of 23s. a week made her total income £2 3s 6d.

I submit that the 23s. a week compensation ought not to be taken into account in a case of this nature. It is granted by the court because of the loss of the husband. Considered in the financial aspect, it is a most inadequate sum for the loss of the husband—23s. replacing £5 14.s. a week. At the time the younger son joined the Forces he was earning £3 a week. The mother now loses that £3 and obtains only 10s. 6d. from his Army allowance. So, because compensation has been granted to her in a weekly sum she cannot obtain a dependant's allowance. If the compensation had been granted to her in a lump sum, which she could have invested had she had sufficient capital, or other income, she would have been able to draw the dependant's allowance.

I want to point out what the effect of this will be when the younger son comes home. He will return home when he is over 21. Let us suppose, for the purpose of illustration, that he gets married. The mother will then have no other income coming into that home except for the 10s. per week widow's pension, because she will have spent the whole of the £285 granted as compensation. I do submit that here is something which requires the consideration of the Government. I understand from the Service Departments that this is a Treasury regulation which has been laid down, and they are tied to the principle of considering weekly compensation as an income. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will be able to say that the Government will consider this position where it is falling very hardly indeed upon widows and their dependants. In submitting this case tonight I hope that the Minister will have something good to say on this point