§ 22. Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to alleviate the problems of poverty among the families of low wage earners in London.
§ Mr. EnnalsThe Government have done much to help families of low wage earners and we are making further investigations in order to judge whether extra provision is needed.
§ Sir B. Rhys WilliamsCan the hon. Gentleman say whether he favours the payment of family allowances to the first child?
§ Mr. EnnalsThis would be an extremely costly operation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He will also be aware that since the Government came into power we have more than doubled the value of family allowances for the second and subsequent children.
§ Mr. WinnickShould not the review of poverty in London be set against the Tory campaign of the alleged abuses in social security payments? Is it not disgraceful that in a society where 1 per cent. of the population owns over 40 per cent. of the country's wealth, such. poverty should continue to exist?
§ Mr. EnnalsThe field work in the survey was carried out between February, 1965, and April, 1966. Since then 903 there have been a number of improvements by the Government, including increases in family allowances, the introduction of earnings-related short-term benefits, and other benefits to meet the plight of these people. I could not accept that statistics produced of the situation in 1965 could be assumed to be true today.
§ Lord BalnielDoes the hon. Gentleman accept that since the survey in 1966 showed that there were 500,000 children in poverty, a recent survey has shown that there are 750,000 in poverty? Does he accept the statistical picture as shown by the Child Poverty Action Group?
§ Mr. EnnalsIt is typical of the noble Lord that he doubles his own figures. The study concerned shows that there are 250,000 families with five or more dependent children today. I really cannot accept the noble Lord's figures. I do not accept the conclusion of the Child Poverty Action Group who base their conclusions on figures published more than two years ago. As the House knows, we are hoping shortly to publish figures based on the family expenditure survey relating to the situation at the end of 1968.
§ Lord BalnielOn a point of order. It is quite improper for the Minister to misquote entirely what I said. I referred to the number of children in poverty—not the number of families in poverty.
§ Mr. EnnalsIf I have misunderstood the noble Lord I will certainly apologise to him, but I repeat my point that any figures that are based on a survey carried out in 1965 cannot possibly be applicable to the situation today. In fact, they are much more applicable to the situation which we inherited when we came to power in 1964.