division_name: Widows
motion: <p>
   I beg to move,
  <p> 
   
    That this House welcomes the long-overdue extension of widow's benefits to widowers, and the doubling of Bereavement Payments; but notes that this costs only &#163;100 million annually in the long term, compared with the &#163;600 million cut the Government will make through the replacement of widows' pensions by a Bereavement Tax Allowance, the abolition of Dividend Tax Credits and the restriction of Council Tax Benefit on higher-value properties; regrets the Government's woefully inadequate response to next year's halving of widows' entitlement to additional pension; welcomes the fact that this is now under investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman; and calls on the Government to cease their attacks on the living standards of widows.
  <p>
   I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  <p> 
   
    'supports the Government's proposals to reform bereavement benefits, including the Bereavement Payment, which will provide a tax-free lump sum of &#163;2,000--double the value of the current Widow's Payment; welcomes the additional help given to the children of widowers, who will qualify for the new Widowed Parent's Allowance, which will replace the Widowed Mother's Allowance; welcomes the protection given to widows over 55, who might otherwise have no practical alternative to relying on Income Support; and welcomes the wide range of policies which are designed to assist women to play a full and active part in the community.'.
  <p>
  I also asked what the total cost would be. She replied:
  <p> 
   
  "The additional cost to central Government of a full disregard . . . is estimated to be in the region of &#163;70 million".--[ Official Report , 20 May 1999; Vol. 331, c.  429-30 .]
  <p>Question put,  That the original words stand part of the Question:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 37, Noes 274.
  