Clause 1. — (Extension of purposes for which policies may be issued.)

Part of Orders of the Day — Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Bill. – in the House of Commons on 15th March 1929.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Sir Robert Newman Sir Robert Newman , Exeter

I hope the Committee will not accent the proposal. It is very ambiguous. What does the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) mean by "separation." Is it a legal separation. There are many cases in which people agree to separate. And the hon. Member is assuming that in all cases the husband maintains the family. There are many cases in which he is a most undesirable member of society, and the wife chiefly maintains the family. It is a dangerous policy to say that a woman shall not be able to insure her own child without the consent of the father. If the hon. Member had suggested that the consent of both parents should be required there would be something in it. In addition to the difficulties mentioned by the Attorney-General it seems to me that the principle of the Amendment is wrong. The Attorney-General referred to insanity. What about the man who spends a good deal of his time in prison? He is separated from his wife. Would it be considered a voluntary separation? There are many reasons why it is almost impossible to accept such an Amendment.