Air Services
1006
1007
to exclude thay Pacific and this route gave rise to a great dignation locally in Hong Kong? a well-established precedent that new route or an extension of a granted, a reciprocal arrangement at both ends providing that each ive a share in the new trade thus May I join with the noble Lady Burton, in welcoming rnment's decision and expressing that the increased traffic which from the Government's decision be to the advantage of British of British Caledonian, of Laker thay Pacific and to the enormously benefit of Britain and Hong the interests of cheaper fares? that the Government decision rmly to be welcomed.
REFGARNE: My Lords, if I ond to the first point, Hong I very special case, not only for rs that I have mentioned, but use it is considered as part of ritory for air services purposes. hy the matter came before the ation Authority and my right le friend.
›RUMALBYN: My Lords, if re granted to the three gome at have applied for them, will ales be free to choose their own
Social Security (No. 2)
[ 17 JUNE 1980 ]
seats?
Cannot better use be made of energy by minimising the number of aircraft and relating the number of seats to those presently available and not to those that are hoped to be available?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that with fuel at the price it is, none of the airlines will be operating except in an economic way.
Lord GEDDES: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government are aware of the satisfaction that will be caused in Hong Kong as a result of this announcement-albeit somewhat diluted satisfaction? Is he also aware of the extreme importance to the people of Hong Kong of allowing Cathay Pacific on to this route; and, further, the im- portance of Anglo-Hong Kong relations and Anglo-Sino relations?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, no doubt, my Lords; but those were not of course the considerations in my right honourable friend's mind.
SOCIAL SECURITY (No. 2) BILL
4.43 p.m.
House again in Committee.
IAmendment No. 26 not moved:1
Bill
1008
particularly need financial support to help them to adjust to the new situation. Secondly, the argument about incentives and the relationship between benefit and earnings which underlie the Government's hostility to the earnings-related supple- ments to unemployed and sickness benefit, has no relevance whatsoever to the situation of widows. Thirdly, the earnings-related addition to the widow's allowance must be seen in the context of the long-term provision for widows in the national insurance scheme. Widow's allowance is payable for the first six months of widowhood after which it is replaced by a widowed mother's allowance if there are dependent children, or by a widow's pension if there are no children but the widow is aged 40 or over.
Under the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 those benefits are increased by the earnings-related pension which the husband had earned by his contributions from 1978. But the additional earnings-related pension is not paid for the first six months of widowhood precisely because during that period the widow is entitled to a short-term earnings-related addition. If the earnings- related addition payable under the earnings -related scheme is to be abolished, the earnings-related pension payable under the 1975 Act clearly ought to commence immediately on the husband's death. Since the Government do not propos@ to extend, as I understand the situation,