HC Deb 03 July 1969 vol 786 cc787-808

10.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals)

I beg to move: That the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved. The draft Regulations provide for increases to be made in the amounts for basic requirements laid down in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 2 to the Ministry of Social Security Act. As hon. Members know, to these amounts are added an allowance for rent and, where appropriate, a long-term addition of 10s. plus additions for any special needs to give the total of a person's requirements. It is to this level that a claimant's other resources—less any sums that are disregarded—are made up by the supplementary benefits scheme.

The increases proposed in the draft Regulations are, in effect, complementary to the changes in national insurance benefits provided for in the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill and, subject to the approval of both Houses, they will take effect from the same week, commencing 3rd November next.

Before I come to some of the more detailed aspects it may be helpful to the House to look at the proposals in general terms, using, as examples, the two leading scale rates, those for single householders and married couples. I propose to take first the value of the scale rates under the Regulations and secondly the effect of the proposals on people who also have national insurance benefits.

First the value of the scale rates. The draft Regulations are intended, as from next November, to provide people receiving supplementary benefit with rates equal in value to those introduced in October 1967. The House will recall that last October supplementary benefit rates were increased in accordance with a pledge given by the Prime Minister that the most vulnerable members of the community would receive special protection from the effect of devaluation on living costs. The 1968 increase restored the 1967 real value of the scale rates up to October, 1968; the proposals now before the House carry this forward up to November, 1969. Taken together the two increases do for supplementary benefits what the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill aims to do for national insurance benefits by restoring the 1967 values. Increases in rent, which we allow for separately, will of course have been taken into account as they arise.

The fact that the proposals do not go beyond restoration of the 1967 position has to be seen against the wider background of what has already been achieved in the past few years. In March 1965, just five months after taking office. the Government increased the rates of benefit under the then national assistance scheme by no less than 17 per cent. in real terms—by far the largest increase ever made since 1948. This provided at one go a large increase in living standards for many of the poorest members of the community. This was followed up in 1966 by the new supplementary benefit scheme. This not only raised the scale rates of benefit but introduced the longterm addition (originally 9s., but increased in October last to 10s.). We also introduced up to date and simplified rules about capital and other resources and, above all, the concept of a firm entitlement to benefit. This was an extremely important part of that provision. As a result of these changes large numbers of people were for the first time brought within the scheme to receive the extra help they needed. As a result of all these changes, and other factors, including the widespread publicity campaign which launched the new scheme, the number of people receiving supplementary pension has increased from 1,460,000 in 1966 to 1,890,000 today—a very great achievement indeed.

1965 and 1966 in their different ways brought about a great advance in the standard and status of means-tested benefits. In 1967 this was enhanced by a further increase in scale rates, which brought the leading rates to a level 23 per cent. above the value of national assistance rates in October, 1964, even excluding the long-term addition, and nearly 20 per cent. above these rates when they were first introduced in May, 1963 by the previous Administration. It is this major advance in our first three years in office which has been consolidated by the 1968 increases and those now proposed.

The increases in the two main rates (of 5s. for the single householder and 8s. for the married couple) taken with the previous increase of the same amount given in October 1968, when there was no general uprating of national insurance benefits, mean that the main increases in supplementary benefit equal the corresponding increases of 10s. and 16s. proposed under the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill for single and married persons receiving the standard rate of retirement or other national insurance benefit.

When my right hon. Friend made his statement on the proposed increases in benefits on 10th June, some members on both sides of the House expressed concern at the so-called "leap-frogging" effect which the more frequent supplementary benefit upratings introduced for those who are in receipt both of supplementary benefit and of a retirement pension or other national insurance benefit. As hon. Members know, this effect takes two forms: on the one hand, those with supplementary benefit receive more frequent increases and therefore, tend on each occasion to receive a smaller amount, which may cause some disappointment when a supplementary benefit increase and a general increase of national insurance benefits coincide; on the other hand, when, as-at the present time supplementary benefits go up by the smaller amount and at the same time national insurance benefits go up by the larger amount simultaneously, people receiving both benefits see their supplementary benefit payments reduced, although they get an increase of total income by virtue of their increased national insurance benefit.

About three-quarters of all supplementary benefit claimants are also entitled to some national insurance benefit, and I assure hon. Members that the Government do not take lightly the perplexity which these changes may cause to come about. In the first place, I should like hon. Members to know that we intend, as at the 1967 combined uprating and in the light of experience gained then, to give the fullest possible explanation of those changes to those affected by them. Leaflets will be published and made available to all those who are in receipt of supplementary benefit.

Second, I should make clear that by improvements in the procedures of payment we have been able greatly to reduce the number of supplementary benefit recipients who will actually receive next November an order book for a smaller amount than before. This is because the great majority of supplementary pensioners are now paid by a single order book on which retirement pension and supplementary benefit are combined in a single payment. This makes it very much easier for people to understand, because they do not get a larger sum on one book and a smaller one on another.

I ought at this point to refer briefly to the suggestion made by several of my hon. Friends on 10th June that on this occasion supplementary beneficiaries should receive the full amount of the national insurance increase. Such an increase, which would have had to be at the expense of other improvements, would, taken with the 1968 increase, have thrown out of balance the relationship between supplementary benefit rates and national insurance rates, which chiefly benefit people who are above, even if only slightly above, the supplementary benefit level. The White Paper issued last January gave detailed figures on this and also dealt with the related issue of ensuring that, for the future the need for supplementary benefit was gradually reduced by improved benefits earned from contributions. It is our aim in the new scheme, as time goes on, eventually, to raise the level of pensions so that it will be unnecessary for such people to receive supplementary benefit.

I now turn to some of the more detailed items in the draft Regulations. After setting out the leading rates, namely, the level of requirements for married couples and single householders, the draft Regulations set out the proposed new rate for any other person aged not less than 21 years". That is for the single non-householder. Every adult non-householder is entitled to 11 s. standard addition for rent, increased from 10s. last October. The proposed increase of 3s. in the non-householder rate, taken together with the 3s. increase in the scale rate and the Is. increase in the rent addition, both given in 1968, makes a total increase of 7s. since October, 1967, as compared with 10s. to the single householder. The difference between the two increases—like the difference between the rates themselves—is intended to reflect the considerable saving to a claimant which results from his being a member of someone else's household. As from November next, the proposed non-householder rate will be £4 8s. inclusive of the standard rent addition, as compared with the scale rate of £4 16s., exclusive of rent, for the single householder.

The increases of 3s. each, for non-householders aged 16 to 17 and 18 to 20, give a total since October, 1967, of 7s. to the older age group and 6s. to the younger.

I should like to draw hon. Members' attention to the increase of 3s., to £2 4s., in the scale rate for children aged 13 to 15. When these are taken together with last October's increase, this age group will have received an additional 7s. in all since October 1967 compared with 4s. for the 11-to 12-year-olds with whom they were previously bracketed in a single 11 to 15 age band. This age band was first split into a higher and a lower band last October, following a recommendation of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, by giving a proportionately higher increase to the older group. The argument for this was that there was a greater need for an increase for the higher age range, because of the expenses involved in bringing up adolescent children and the earlier onset of puberty.

For the two youngest age groups, those aged under five and five to 10, we are proposing an additional Is. to £18s. and £1 13s. respectively. Because the children's rates are smaller in amount than the main rates, it is not always possible to make increases which produce exactly the same proportionate increase as between one uprating and another. Thus, last October we provided a 2s. increase for each of those groups which we are "topping up" this year with only a further Is. The 3s. total increase maintains, to the nearest shilling, the 1967 real value of both rates, and is the same as the increase proposed to be made in the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill to the standard National Insurance addition for a dependent child.

Members will have noticed that the proposed increases for married and single blind persons are, at 8s. 6d. and 5s. 6d. respectively, 6d. more than those for the corresponding categories of sighted per- sons. The main intention of this extra 6d. is to bring the special scale rates for the blind up to an amount in whole shillings in preparation for the changeover to decimal currency in February 1971. The immediate effect will be that about half the blind claimants will receive the same increase as a sighted person, since their existing benefit is rounded up, and about half will receive a shilling more, since their existing benefit is rounded down.

Apart from the sixpence for decimalisation purposes, we are not proposing any increase in the margin between the scale rates for blind and for sighted persons. It is clear that the margin for the blind is, in the vast majority of cases, sufficient to cover special needs. Where there are exceptional needs, as there are fromt time to time, the Commission has discretionary powers to make up the sums needed in full, and a very sympathetic approach is always taken in such cases. In the light of this the Government consider that it would not be appropriate to increase the amount of the margin which the blind, taken as a group, have over others.

I come now to cost. The proposals which I have outlined would, in themselves, cost an additional £42 million in the first full year, 1970–71, but because of the higher increases in national insurance benefits which will be received by some three-quarters of all supplementary benefit claimants, there will be a net saving of about £23 million in a full year. This saving has to be seen against a background of steadily rising expenditure on supplementary benefits in the past few years: from £246 million in 1965–66, the last full year of National Assistance, to £386 million in 1967–68, the first full year of the new supplementary benefit scheme, and an estimated near-£470 million in the current year, an increase of 90 per cent. on 1965–66. In part this increase is a reflection of the increased numbers receiving benefits, including the old people who had not previously claimed national assistance, and partly it is due to higher levels of benefit, on which I have touched earlier.

The draft Regulations will involve the review of over 2½ million assessments for benefit—a task which has to be completed before 3rd November by the staff working on supplementary benefits in the Department's local social security offices. This will impose upon them a very heavy burden, and since I am referring to the task which lies before the staff of the Commission, it would be appropriate to express our thanks to them on behalf of the Government and the House for the work they do throughout the country. We are asking the House to approve the draft Regulations at this time because of the size of this task and our wish to ensure that the increases proposed can be brought into effect before the winter. I confidently ask the House to approve the draft Regulations.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

I strongly support the increased scales of supplementary benefit shown in the Regulations. It should be a matter of pride to a civilised country like our own that those who cannot, through no fault of their own, support themselves by their own efforts should be given the best possible standard of living that the country as a community can afford. This should be a basic necessity in our thinking.

Would the hon. Gentleman elaborate on the position of the families of those who are closely involved in strikes? This is an "industrial relations day" in the House, so perhaps he will explain the position regarding strikers' families. On a rough calculation, it seems to me that while a striker is not entitled to draw supplementary benefit for himself he draws it in respect of his wife and any of his family.

Am I correct in saying—because I would like the disregards to be checked on here—that one can assume that a wife alone would be drawing something like the £3 17s. Od. and the children at the scales shown? This, if I am right, would mean that the man with a wife and two children would probably be receiving in supplementary benefit while on strike a payment of about £8 per week, to which would be added his rent or mortgage repayments allowance and the payment of health charges.

Will he also confirm that the Commission take into consideration in reducing the sum payable to him only part of any tax rebated during the first few weeks when a man may be on strike? This has not been made clear, and it would be interesting to know if there has been any change. It seems to me an anomaly that part only of the rebated tax is taken into consideration—

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, we are not discussing the parent Act. We are discussing certain increases. The hon. Gentleman may argue that certain groups of people should not have increases under the Regulations. We are talking about increases.

Mr. Page

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for so courteously bringing me back into line. Speaking directly about the increases, I would propose that the increases payable to those on strike who are eligible for supplementary benefit should be made repayable to the Commission at a later stage.

Let us suppose that the increase payable above the present rate would be £1 a week, raising the benefit from £7 to £8, to take an example. It is unfair that this man should draw supplementary benefit for his family on account of an action which he himself has taken, and after a period the money should be rebated to the other taxpayers—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot amend the Regulations. He may oppose the Regulations because he thinks that some people who will get increases under the Regulations should not have them.

Mr. Page

I was trying to amend the method by which the increases might afterwards be drawn back, but if in discussing that I am out of order, I will leave the question where it is, having posed it, and await an occasion when the whole matter may be more fully discussed.

10.53 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington, South)

There are two points on which I would be very much obliged if the Minister would be so kind as to clarify my understanding of his statement. He mentioned the question of entitlement in connection with special supplements. I know how dear to his heart the question of entitlement is, and I would like to be sure that I have precisely followed his arguments.

The figures contained in the Regulations do not give the whole story about two elements in the administration of the grant of special supplements, the disregards and the discretionary element in regard to rent. Entitlement is not established by contributions or by citizenship. Entitlement to the increases is established by need. Yet that is not quite the whole story, as there is a differentiation between one person and another, and it is on this that I hope the Minister will precisely explain his thinking.

In the administration of the disregards, in deciding what people are entitled to receive and whether they are entitled to any increases, if the Ministry officers find that the claimant has personal capital of £2,000, they must deem that person's income to be £7 a week, whether or not that is in fact his or her income. In these days £2,000 might be invested to produce £3 a week, so there is a difference of £4 a week which is taken off the entitlement of people who happen to be in the fortunate position of owning £2,000. In other words, their entitlement is less than that of someone else with the same income but not with the same assets.

I realise that this is a difficult point, but if the Minister is to hang these increases on entitlement, it is important that he should explain how he sees his way through this maze. But more important, and what we are concerned about, are the unhappy people without enough to live on. Could he say whether the State will permanently administer these disregards to force people to eat up their savings? That is what the table of disregards would appear to mean.

Could we also be told what is the long term policy of the Minister about rent? At the present time in at least 90 per cent. of cases whatever rent is claimed is given, unless it is a fantastic and unsuitable figure or patently untrue. This could be an ad hoc policy and could be decided while long term decisions about National Insurance benefits are in the pipeline.

The year 1972 is a long way off, and particularly far away for old people. What is the Government's policy in regard to rent—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman also must seek some other opportunity of discussing the question he seeks to pursue. Under the parent Act there are certain disregards. Those disregards are being increased by these Regulations. The hon. Gentleman can oppose or support the increases mentioned in the Regulations but we cannot discuss the parent Act.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

My error, Mr. Speaker, is probably due to a faulty understanding of the Regulations. The right thing for me to do now is to ask the Minister to clarify my understanding. I have brought my remarks to a conclusion and that is where I had better rest.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince)

I shall speak for only a few minutes, but I cannot help thinking that this discussion is in some way a repetition of our discussions in Committee on the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill. When I look around. apart from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), I see those same faces.

I wish to clarify the matter of publicity. Do I gather that there be widespread publicity about these new supplementary increases? Although the problem is not always realised by the public, the Government will appear not to be giving to the person receiving supplementary benefit the full amount of the promised increase in National Insurance benefits. This is because people on supplementary benefit were given an interim increase last October because of their need. This creates a big problem for Members of Parliament. We will now be besieged by constituents writing to tell us that they have not received the full amount of benefit which they thought they were entitled to receive. I hope the publicity will get across to the people concerned and that it will be sustained. Perhaps not everybody will understand it but it will certainly help Members of Parliament.

The other point on which I would like clarification concerns the rent allowance. I know of one or two cases where, when the people administering the supplementary benefit come to calculate the allowance for rent, they appear to discriminate against a man who is a tenant of the Coal Board. Only the other day, I advised such a man to pursue this point. He was told, "We know that you are a tenant of the National Coal Board and that its representative is not coming round for the rent." As he is still on the Coal Board's books, the rent is deducted from his wage packet. In other words, it is assumed that when he goes back to work, the Coal Board will deduct the arrears of rent. If he does not receive the same consideration as the private tenant or the tenant of a corporation house, he will be that much worse off—

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, we cannot discuss whether a rent allowance should be included or not included for tenants of the Coal Board. We are increasing, inside a pattern which we cannot discuss on this Order, certain allowances. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the increases.

Mr. McGuire

I appreciate that. I am trying to understand the existing law. I am not asking for any Amendment, with respect. I am saying that a person's rent is taken into consideration in what is paid by way of a rent allowance. It seems that the allowance is administered differently in the case of a person who is a Coal Board tenant. I do not think that that is what the Act lays down, and I want it on record that I think that my opinion of how it should be worked is correct. Whether a person is a Coal Board tenant, a tenant of a private landlord or a corporation tenant, a rent allowance should be made on the same basis for all.

Whatever our lamentations about the inadequacies of the supplementary benefit, in a civilised society we want to pay to less well-off members of it a sum which will enable them to enjoy some of the benefits of our good society. I will end on this note, Mr. Speaker. As you well know, I am noted for my short, sharp, succinct speeches, to which you yourself in the past have paid tribute. We often hear "posh" French and Latin sayings in this House, most of which are above me. Just for a change, I do not see why we should not have a Lancashire miner's saying: Solomon was wise and Samson was strong, but neither of 'em cud pay beawt brass. I hope that we shall get the brass soon, and that we can pay the increased benefits and later on the much better benefits which we all desire to see.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston)

First, I should like to thank the Minister, on behalf of this side of the House, for his careful and painstaking explanation of these Regulations. I am delighted to hear that a full explanation will be given to all claimants for supplementary benefits. If they are as confused about the Regulations as many hon. Members of this House, I fear that they will not understand them at all. I hope that the pamphlets to be sent out will be carefully drafted, because this is now a most complicated situation, as I shall endeavour to explain.

I should also like to echo the thanks and appreciation which the Minister extended to the staff of his Ministry throughout the country. I have some first-hand experience of the way that these men and women work, and I have always been happy to pay tribute to them, not only for their efficiency, which to me is remarkable, but also for the extremely compassionate approach which they take to many difficult problems which come before them.

We do not intend to oppose these Regulations, which simply demonstrate once more the annual necessity of increasing the normal requirement for subsistence living.

In 1967 and 1968—the only two complete years since the passing of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966—there were similar increases, though the Minister has managed to tell us that last year the increase was in fulfilment of the Prime Minister's pledge after devaluation that the most vulnerable members of the community would be protected. In the light of that, it is a strange coincidence that the amount of increase is the same in 1967 as in 1968 and as it will be in 1969. Therefore, I feel that this dragging in of the Prime Minister's pledge was a little extravagant. It seems that, devaluation or no devaluation, the rate of increase for the normal requirement for a single household is 5s. per week per year, the only difference, since the passing of the Act, being the Is. increase in the long term addition which happened last year.

I do not want to make a party political point. I use these figures simply to point up the problem that any Government face of ensuring that pensioners and others on low incomes keep up their standards of living in the face of rising prices. Suffice to say, the increases in statutory normal requirements under the Government since 1966 have been barely enough to enable the pensioners to hold their own.

A recent investigation, as the Minister will know, has shown that the cost of living for pensioners increases faster than the cost of living for non-pensioners. I have a cutting from The Times of 26th June which shows that against the Index of Retail Prices of 128.1 for ordinary households, those with one pensioner were 129.4 and those with two pensioners were 129.6 when January 1962 figures represent 100. So pensioners need special attention from this House, and I am glad to pay tribute to the Government that in these Regulations they are getting it.

The Regulations introduce a flat-rate increase into the normal requirement against which the means tested, Exchequer financed, non-contributory, non-earnings-related supplementary pensions and allowances are calculated. This inflation-proofing increase is almost entirely non-controversial, though some hon. Members opposite argued on a previous occasion that it should have been 10s. rather than 5s., because there will be a 10s. a week increase in the retirement pension. The Minister has already argued that, because the normal requirement was increased by 5s. last year, it need only be increased by another 5s. this year to keep in line with the 10s. increase in the retirement pension. But both these arguments are entirely irrelevant, because they ignore the fact that it is the normal requirement under these Regulations which controls the incomes of those most in need, and the amount of the retirement pension is, by a long chalk, less important.

Let me briefly illustrate what I mean. If these Regulations are passed this evening in this House—as I hope they will be—and also in the other place, and if, by some mischance, the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill, now in Committee, were not passed, the only pensioners who would be worse off than if both were passed would be those with a private income over and above their State pension big enough to pay their rent and rates in full and still exceed by about 6s. a week the total of the long term addition of 10s. a week and of the disregards of Possibly £3 a week. What matters to the worse off people is these Regulations; not what we are doing in Committee. For those with no income other than their retirement pension, these Regulations will mean an extra 5s. a week, and the subsequent passage of the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill will make no difference whatsoever. Any objection to the proposals in these Regulations should not be in relation to the retirement pension at all, but should be on their adequacy as such.

These proposals are, or in my opinion they should be, non-controversial, and yet the supplementary pensions which they seek to increase are based on all the principles which the Secretary of State rejects with such scorn in his other proposals. They are means-tested, non-contributory, non-earnings-related, and wholly Exchequer-financed.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House can be forgiven if they find themselves in a state of confusion about the Secretary of State's intentions. After a very long gestation period, the right hon. Gentleman was delivered last January of a White Paper which purported to chart the course of national superannuation until 1972 at least, but, because he has not yet been able to convince the life offices that he is on the right lines, we shall see no legislation on it in this Session. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman makes it clear in the White Paper that for the long-term he favours earnings-related contributions and benefits with pensions—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must link his remarks to the Regulations. We are not discussing the whole of social insurance.

Mr. Fortescue

If you will bear with me, Mr. Sneaker, I shall link these Regulations directly to the whole theme of my speech. The right hon. Gentleman wants earnings-related contributions and benefits at an adequate rather than a subsistence level. Last month the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill which is in Committee upstairs and which he hopes to have through all its stages this Session. This seeks to balance the books on the basis of earnings-related contributions and a flat rate of benefits, with suggestions in the accompanying White Paper, which has no legislative force, that the additional graduated contributions will "of course" earn extra benefits.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Fortescue

Finally, we have these Regulations—simple, acceptable, straightforward, non-controversial, debatable in terms the House can understand, with none of the present jargon of the Committee upstairs, no talk of dynamising bricks, or of abatement, or of contracting in or contracting out, of inflation-proofing, of Boyd, or even of Carpenter. We debate these last, and they will be approved first. My perplexity is why consideration cannot be given to the possibility of some of the eminently sensible principles on which these Regulations are based being extended to all pensions.

I am entirely convinced that the absolute certainty of all Governments since Beveridge that the people of this country are enthusiastically in favour of a contributory pension scheme needs to be challenged. Its only basis is the statement in the Beveridge Report—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It may be true. I know that I am speaking among enthusiasts for social insurance, but if it is challenged it will not be tonight on these Regulations.

Mr. Fortescue

I accept that entirely, Mr. Speaker, but since 1946 it has been accepted as a fact, and no attempt has been made to verify it. It would be possible to verify it, but the Government have not done so, and I shall pursue the matter no further.

Our confusion about the Secretary of State's thinking can also be traced to the Government's inability to tell us what they intend the relationship to be between the amount of the retirement pension and that of the normal requirement under these Regulations for supplementary pension purposes. In the four years 1966 to 1969 inclusive, the latter, excluding the long-term addition, has been 1s. above, 4s. above, 1s. above, and this year 4s. below the former respectively. When the long-term addition is included, the normal requirement has been 10s., 5s., 11s., and now 6s. respectively above the retirement pension.

Is this deliberate policy? Why is this so? Would it not be a much more comprehensible policy to the pensioners themselves if the two figures were kept at the same level, so that pensioners could understand that their retirement pension was intended to cover their normal requirement, less rates and rent? I am sure that the Minister and other hon. Members have tried to explain to pensioners why these two figures differ, and if they have had the same experience as I have had, they have failed.

We must remember that the normal requirement, which until 1966 was fixed by the National Assistance Board, which is non-political, is now fixed by the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, under which these Regulations are made, and which is operated by the Minister—and his worst enemies could not accuse him of being a non-political animal. It would be reassuring if we could know on what basis it is fixed and what policy the Government are following about the relationship between retirement pension and the normal requirement.

Similarly, it would be most enlightening if we could know—and this information has been asked for many times, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley)—how the relationship between the normal requirement for the single householder and that for the married householder is calculated. My mathematics tell me that the latter is always 1⅔ times the former. Does this mean that the Government believe that two can live 1⅔ times as cheaply as one, due allowance being made for the fact that a married couple receives only one long-term allowance, and including rent and rates? If so, why? Or does it mean, which is far more probable, that the Ministry has over the years automatically increased the normal requirement for husband and wife by 8s. a week every time they have increased the requirement for the single householder by 5s.?

It is almost incredible that the relationship between these two needs has remained stable over all these years. I would like to know when this relationship was last examined. Has any consideration been given to the possibility of varying the normal requirement as between the various regions of the country? I appreciate that the administrative problems would be great, and I further understand that the present flat rate means that pensioners may be encouraged to move out of the cities into the country, where their supplementary pension will go further, and this would be desirable. Nevertheless, some pensioners prefer to stay in their own homes and the flat rate must mean, even though it excludes rent and rates, that the pensioner living in London is considerably worse off than his contemporary living in the country. A brief statement from the Minister would be appreciated.

A word now about the long-term support of 10s. a week for which all pensioners are eligible. Its purpose is to pay for small extras so that these pensioners will not have to apply individually for items, such as window-cleaning, heavy laundry, additional coal in the winter and so on. I applaud the humanity of this concept, but I would point out one aspect of it which leaves pensioners with a sense of injustice. Let us imagine two pensioners living next door to each other with identical incomes, both fit and well. One day one of them falls ill and she is told that she must have a special diet for a long time, costing her an extra 5s. a week. She receives no additional allowance for this because it falls within the long term addition. Thus she finds herself less well off and less well off than her neighbour, with whom up to that time she had been in a state of absolute parity.

It is impossible to explain to such a lady what is the logic and justice behind the Regulations. I submit that there is a strong case for paying a long-term addition, exclusive of any expenses deemed essential on medical advice.

How much will this increase cost? How many more children will now, officially, be below the poverty level once this level is raised? What about special requirement figures for other kinds of disabled people, the tubercular who used to have a special advantage, handicapped housewives, chronic sick and over 80s? How long will the wage stop be with us? My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow. West (Mr. John Page) was hinting that there should perhaps be a wage stop for wives when their husbands are on strike. and this is a very complicated suggestion, on which the Minister might like to comment.

What progress is being made in the review of cases of the disabled affected by the wage stop? The Minister will remember that on 19th May he said that this review was taking much longer than he had hoped. He said: I very much regret this has meant it has not been possible to begin the review of disabled persons affected by the wage stop… Instructions to local offices to begin examining individual cases are going out next week."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1969; Vol. 784, c. 7.] That was May of this year. and this matter was first raised in 1967. What progress is being made in the eradication of abuses in the claiming of supplementary benefits by the temporary unemployed? That is a subject very dear to my heart. What about a constant attendance allowance for those on supplementary benefit now, and not in 1972, which is when we are promised it? My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) spoke of the disregards and the fact that when the capital sum which is disregarded for this purpose is calculated for interest purposes it is at an arbitrary rate of interest and does not take into account the actual income from that capital sum which is received. What does the Minister think about that?

We shall not oppose these Regulations because they are necessary in the long term. I commend to the Minister the suggestion made on 24th July, 1967, Column 65, of his hon. Friend, that "stalwart Tory". the Member for Fife. West (Mr. William Hamilton). He thought it was a pity that important social problems should be dealt with piecemeal and asked whether the then Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) would consider setting up a new Beveridge-type committee to look at the whole problem comprehensively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th July. 1967; Vol. 751, c. 65.] This suggestion has since twice been repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who has wide experience of these matters. Can the Minister give one good reason why these suggestions made by both sides of the House should not be accepted? Surely the social changes since the Beveridge Report warrant a new, non-political objective examination of our entire social security system?

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Ennals

With the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to at least some of the many questions put forward. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue). He does take a close interest in this matter, not only in the House but in the work of the local offices. I thank him and commend his good example to other hon. Gentlemen. There is no doubt that the supplementary benefit offices as well as the national insurance offices greatly appreciate an interest taken in their work by hon. Members, and anything done in that way will be much appreciated.

The hon. Member seeks to direct every debate in which he speaks to the White Paper which foreshadows legislation in the autumn. It is clear that the White Paper has stimulated tremendous interest. I know that the hon. Member is absolutely dying to get to the legislation in the autumn.

It is for that reason that I answer the last question. If we were now to accept the recommendation that we should establish something like a Royal Commission, it would postpone for perhaps three years legislation which we are to introduce shortly after the summer.

We have done a great deal of work on this. One of the main intentions in the legislation is to raise the level of pensions so that we will not have such a large number of people dependent upon means-tested supplementary benefit.

I was glad, Mr. Speaker, that you pulled up the hon. Gentlemen when he started to preach his heresy against the contributory principle. I know that his two hon. Friends sitting on his Front Bench were equally relieved, because they strongly disagree with the philosophy he was about to preach.

The hon. Member for Garston asked by what principles we determine what should be the scale rate of supplementary benefit in relation to National Insurance. It is an assessment of need, and we make our reassessment as to what should be the increase in the scale rate according to changing need. It would be difficult to have a different scale rate that applied in different parts of the country although the hon. Member will recognise that one of the factors that perhaps changes more than anything else is the level of rents, so since we are not tied to a particular level of rents, this can be dealt with. A high rent in London will be paid just as a lower rent in the provinces is.

This will enable me to refer to a question by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) about rents. The Act lays down that the rent is added to the assess- ment provided it is reasonable. This also answers the question of the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams). About 99 per cent. of rents are accepted as being reasonable and are allowed in full.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ince referred to an allegation of discrimination against Coal Board tenants. The reasonableness of a rent is not judged according to who is the landlord but according to whether or not the rent seems to us to be reasonable. If my hon. Friend will give me any details he may have, I will ask the Supplementary Benefit Commission to look into them.

I was asked when we would be introducing, for example, the constant attendance allowance. The answer is that it will be contained in the legislation that will be coming forward in the autumn.

The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) questioned me about the position of strikers. Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, disqualifies a person involved in a trade dispute from receiving supplementary benefit for his own requirements. However, this disqualification does not, of course, extend to his dependants, and rightly so. It would be intolerable if, because a man was on strike and was not himself entitled to receive supplementary benefit, his wife and children, who were in no way involved in the dispute, were put in peril.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is not part of the Instrument. The question tonight is only whether the striker or his wife should be entitled to the increase in these Regulations.

Mr. Ennals

I am obliged for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was merely seeking to assist the House by answering a question that had been put to me.

The question of disregards was raised, and this Instrument does not make any change in that connection. To do so would require an Act of Parliament. In any event, the policy is to change the disregards less frequently than we change the scale rates. It is fair to recognise that people with substantial capital are, naturally, expected to spend some of it, although I agree that it would be difficult to reach a conclusion as to how much of it they should be expected to spend.

Hon. Members must appreciate that this is a means-tested scheme and that it would be unfair to pay full benefit to a person with substantial capital. But we also accept that it would be wrong not to have a disregard of a certain degree of capital, since people would find themselves in a difficult position if they were expected to exhaust all their capital before being able to come on to supplementary benefit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ince then asked about publicity. He will be interested to know that there will be an explanatory leaflet available in the various offices of the Department as soon as the Regulations are made. A detailed explanation will be made available to supplementary benefit recipients when the new levels are introduced.

Mr. Fortescue

Why does the normal level fluctuate in relation to the retirement pension level, sometimes being slightly above and sometimes being slightly below?

Mr. Ennals

I answered that when I said that the supplementary benefit level is calculated on the basis of need. I am not saying that this consideration does not come into the assessment of the National Insurance level, but from the point of view of supplementary benefits we are concerned with the basic need and, therefore, the movement of prices is inevitably a governing factor in determining the supplementary benefit level.

As several hon. Members have quoted statistics, they may like some figures to show where we stand. At present about 2,700,000 claimants are receiving supplementary benefit, and the benefits in payment cover the needs of some 4 million people, including more than 700,000 children. Most of these 2,700.000 recipients are over pension age; supplementary pensioners. This leaves about 800,000 people with supplementary allowances, among them 327,000 who are sick or disabled, 66,000 women with widow's benefits, 168,000 women with dependent children and 223,000 unemployed.

There are other smaller groups, notably about 14,000 looking after sick or aged relatives. This is a very substantial number of people receiving benefit from the Supplementary Benefit Commission.

I am glad that the hon. Member welcomed the Regulations. As he said, they are non-contentious. They will bring relief to a very large number and I am glad that the House is not to divide on this Motion.

Lord Balniel (Hereford)

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I repeat the question asked by my hon. Friend? This is of great importance in assessing the implications of the Regulations in the present financial situation. What is likely to be the cost each year?

Mr. Ennals

The cost of the increases outlined in the Regulations would he an additional £42 million in the first full year, 1970–71.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved. That the Supplementary Benefit (Determinaction of Requirements) Regulations 1969. a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.