HC Deb 01 December 1970 vol 807 cc1203-7
Mr. S. C. Silkin

I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 3, at end insert 'or for such lesser period (not being less than four weeks) as may elapse before a further claim is made'. This Amendment is intended to deal with the situation of a deterioration in family income which can occur during the half year period which at present is a fixed period for which a family income supplement is to run. We had a trial run on this in Committee and after considerable pressure the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say: What I can tell him is that if a person would be in a more favourable position, if he would get a larger FIS, by claiming rather later, then that is a valid point…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 1352.] We are glad to have his assurance that he accepted that fact. He went on to say that this could be dealt with by regulations.

We fully appreciate that, but we have carefully considered the point of whether it needs to be dealt with by regulations or whether it cannot be written into the Bill. We feel it can and should and that is why we have tabled this Amendment. We propose that after a period of not less than four weeks—and we are not wedded to the four week period; we are open to argument about that—it should be open to a family in receipt of family income supplement simply to make another claim.

Of course it would not do it if its circumstances had improved in the meantime; it would only do it if its circumstances had worsened. If it is enabled in that way to make another claim it will be open to the Supplementary Benefits Commission to look at the situation as it exists in the deteriorated family circumstances and to deal with them as they are. We feel that this is a reasonable Amendment which will deal with a number of different sorts of cases, the sort of case for example where a man, a breadwinner, has to undergo a change of employment which means a loss of wages, or where he has been in receipt of regular overtime and that overtime suddenly stops. We all know that that sort of circumstance occurs. It will also deal, we hope, with the problem of the seasonal trades. In many cases the income produced by the seasonal trades would be well above the prescribed amounts in the Bill. There are also many fringe activities where the pay is very low. I would instance in particular certain domestic employments in holiday areas. There may be quite a sharp drop in the income of the breadwinner when the season comes to an end. Yet, if the original application is made, let us say in August, the Bill as drafted will not enable a further application to be made until February. So during perhaps the worst part of the year the supplement is based on the highest earnings of the family in the course of the year.

Why should it not in these circumstances be possible in September, when the earnings of the breadwinner have reached their low point, for a new application to be made, provided, of course, that a reasonable time. which we suggest as four weeks, has elapsed since the original application was made?

The Amendment is simple. It would not complicate the Bill in any way. It would simply write into it an opportunity to make a further claim in circumstances such as I have mentioned, and unless there are insuperable administrative difficulties, which at the moment we cannot understand, to that right being enshrined in the Bill, we can see no reason why this exercise should be left to the variability of the regulations.

Mr. Dean

As the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has said, this point was discussed in Committee, when I gave an assurance that we would seek to deal with it by regulations. I am afraid that I am going to have to suggest that perhaps the way of dealing with the problem which he suggests will not be appropriate and may well not be in the interests of many F.I.S. candidates. But I hope that I will be able to assure the House that the sort of problems he has raised today and in Committee will be satisfactorily dealt with either under the regulations or under the Bill itself.

The hon. and learned Gentleman raised a number of cases and I will try to explain how they may be dealt with under the 26-week rule, the better or for worse rule, that we propose. In the first place, there may be a mistake as to a material fact about the amount of income which is concerned. I think that this was one of the points he was concerned about in Committee. It is intended to cover that under the regulations under Clause 10, which will provide for such a case to be reviewed at once. In other words, the 26-week period would not have to proceed in the case of a mistake as to a material fact. It would be reviewed at once, as we propose, under the regulations.

Then there are the circumstances of the seasonal workers and also those of a person changing his job and where it might not be possible to assess what the earnings are from full time work. In cases where it is not possible to ascertain with certainty normal work—seasonal work, change of job, and so on—a short award can be made to enable the normal pattern of earnings to be established. This would cover another category of people the hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind. Furthermore, it will be open to the claimant to withdraw a claim at any time before it has been determined if, for some reason, he feels that the information provided is not adequate. So I hope that the House will feel that the regulation to be made under the Bill and the way in which we propose that these definitions shall be dealt with will adequately cover the points he has in mind.

To go further and adopt the Amendment would cause considerable difficulty. One of the advantages of the 26-week rule, the "for better or for worse" rule, is simplicity—we keep returning to the need for simplicity in the scheme. But it also means that if the earnings of a F.I.S. family increase during that 26-week period, the family gets the benefit, such an increase is not taken into account.

If we were to have a provision such as the Amendment for a review after a four-week period in favour of the family concerned, we should equally have to have a review if it were to the family's disadvantage, and some families might be worse off. The House as guardian of the taxpayers' money would not accept the proposition that we should allow the scheme to operate in one way and not the other.

I hope that the House will feel that there are advantages of simplicity in the 26-week period and also that a substantial number of families will thereby gain. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not wish to press the Amendment.

Mr. Meacher

I note with great interest what the Under-Secretary has said and I ask him to confirm one point. Will he assure us, as he is so set on keeping the 26-week period, that benefit once determined will not be reduced as the result of change of circumstances of applicants? This seems to be what he was saying and it is certainly the wording of Clause 6(2)(b) which sets out the position "except where regulations otherwise provide". As we have little information about precisely what the regulations will or will not provide, may we have an assurance that the level of F.I.S. will not be changed after the original determination for a working, though unmarried, or deserted, mother, following, for example, an alleged discovery of cohabitation?

Mr. Dean

By leave of the House, I will take into account the point which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has raised. It is certainly the intention that the 26-week rule shall apply irrespective of changes in circumstances. There is power in the Bill to make changes if, in the light of experience, it is felt that they would be appropriate.

Amendment negatived.

Back to
Forward to