§ 22. Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how much it would cost to raise the rates of unemployment benefit to the level of the National Assistance scales.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterAbout £1 million a year net.
§ Mr. WillisIn view of that, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is about time that he raised all the benefits under the National Insurance Act?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIf I raised the benefits under the National Insurance Act while not raising the scales of National Assistance, the people who would not benefit would be the poorest section.
§ Mr. WillisSurely the right hon. Gentleman knows that an unemployed man, who probably has had a very small wage whilst he was working, has to wait two or three weeks before he becomes eligible for National Assistance. I pointed that out in my previous supplementary. If the benefits were raised, this would at least remove that hardship as well as a great many other hardships suffered by pensioners and others.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterNo, it would not, because the hon. Gentleman's Question related to the relative scales. In truth and in fact, what is at least as important, perhaps more important, is supplementation in respect of rents by the National Assistance Board. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's proposal would not meet his own point.
§ 24. Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many allowances are being paid by the National Assistance Board to persons in receipt of sickness benefit; and what was the average period of such payments in 1959.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI am informed by the National Assistance Board that 985 on 29th March last 135,000 weekly National Assistance grants were being paid to persons in receipt of sickness benefit. Information about the duration of such grants in 1959 is not available.
§ Mr. MillanDoes not that figure of 135,000 weekly payments demonstrate the inadequacy of the sickness benefit, in common with other National Insurance benefits? Is it not time for a review of all National Insurance benefits in order to bring them into line with the rise in the cost of living?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterOn the contrary, it demonstrates the great value and flexibility of the system of supplementary payments made by the National Assistance Board, which, in cases of supplementation of sickness benefit, are, as an inquiry some years ago showed, mainly to aid the hardest cases where sickness has been prolonged.
§ Mr. RossDoes that mean, judging by the answer and figures already quoted, that the Minister is satisfied with a scheme of insurance—the important word is "insurance"—that fails to cover adequately the contingencies against which people are supposed to be insured'?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe hon. Gentleman's question appears to suggest that he himself is questioning the desirability of the long stop of our social services, namely, National Assistance.
§ 26. Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how much would be required to be added weekly to current unemployment and sickness benefit to maintain the relationship between average earnings and benefits as at February 1958.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterAn addition of about 3s. 6d. to the single person's rate would give the same relationship between benefit and average earnings as existed in April, 1958, which is the nearest date to that requested for which figures are available.
§ Mr. SmallIn view of the figure of 3s. 6d., does not the Minister acknowledge that now is the time to make the adjustment?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI have absolutely nothing to add to what I have said at considerable length in the House in the last few weeks.
§ 28. Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance by how much current average weekly earnings of adult workers male and female, respectively, exceeds current unemployment benefit; and what were the amounts in February 1958.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe average earnings of men in the industries covered by the Ministry of Labour's half-yearly inquiry were 253s. 2d. in April, 1958, and 270s. 9d. in October, 1959. For a married couple with two children, these averages exceeded benefit by 151s. 2d. and 168s. 9d., respectively. For a single woman, earnings were 131s. 3d. and 140s. 4d., which exceeded benefit at these dates by 81s. 3d. and 90s. 4d.
§ Mr. RossIn view of the continuous and growing gap between earnings and insurance benefits, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied continually to do nothing about it and to give no assurance about the future?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe hon. Gentleman's hypothesis that the gap is growing is not sustained by the fact that, taking the example I gave of a man with a wife and two children, the benefit represented 33 per cent. in October, 1951, and now represents 37½, per cent.