HC Deb 11 March 1952 vol 497 cc1299-300

First, I turn to the sphere of the Minister of National Insurance. I have already referred to welfare milk and school milk. Besides this protection to parents in the interests of their children, it is proposed to increase the family allowance from 5s. a week to 8s. a week on the same basis as the present Act, namely, to children in the family after the first. The cost will be some £37 million in a full year. Thus a family with two children only will receive an extra 3s. and this will cover extra costs of food for the children. As families are larger so will the benefit very rapidly spread in the interests of the family as a whole. Thus we fulfil the undertaking given in our policy statement that in redistributing public money to those in need we would use the method of family allowances.

I come now to the National Insurance scheme, which circumstances of today would call us in any case to revise. We are already pledged to consider the needs of old age pensioners. There are differences of rates between pensioners over 70 and under. There are differences of opinion about the value of this particular method adopted by my predecessor to give incentives to those over 65 to stay at work. Indeed, ideas—and they are not confined to one side of the Committee or the other—vary about the relative value of the different forms of encouragement which might be given to encourage longer working.

In view of these very real difficulties, to which a great deal of time and thought has been given, and of the important social issues involved, my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance has made a request that he should be given time to enter into discussions at once with both sides of industry with a view to working out proposals which he will present to the House. I feel sure he will benefit by the advice of the Trades Union Congress. There are many problems, and the committees should not rush into decisions without proper advice.

I have asked the Minister to take as a measure of what we can afford uniform benefits of 32s. 6d. for a single person and 54s. for a married couple and the appropriate increase of contributions—the increases for employers and employees would be 7½d. each for men per week and 5½d. for women. The contribution income from employers and workers would be about equal to the increase at the outset in the amount of benefits, though, of course, as the Committee are probably aware the cost of pension benefits rises steadily as time goes on, and the contribution income remains about constant.

If I take account of the saving of National Assistance on the one hand and of the loss of Income Tax on the contributions on the other, the change involves a burden on the budget and the Insurance Fund taken together of about £10 million a year in the early years. This, in round terms, is the material which I have asked my right hon. Friend to use in building up his scheme.

Forward to