HC Deb 11 May 1970 vol 801 cc812-4
22. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for improvements in family allowances.

16. Mr. Barnes

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he now has to increase family allowances.

Mr. Ennals

I explained in an earlier reply why we cannot yet commit ourselves to one particular possible solution.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a major problem today is the large family of the low earner? Has he any other instrument anything like as effective as the family allowance system for dealing with that real and increasing problem?

Mr. Ennals

The family allowance system has made a great contribution. It is fascinating to bear in mind that there was no increase when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister between 1956 and 1964 and that family allowances have been more than doubled since this Government came to power.

Mr. Orme

Is my hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Gentleman reacted rather strongly with a Motion on the Order Paper when his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) suggested that the family allowance be increased? Whilst on this side many hon. Members feel that it could be electorally unpopular, nevertheless it it a necessary thing to do and my hon. Friend would have full support for increasing the family allowance.

Mr. Ennals

I think that I now understand what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) meant, because it was explained by what looked like a well informed article in The Times today in which it was suggested, by the political correspondent, that the policy of the Conservative Party, if returned to power, would be that the family allowance would not be paid to those inside the tax range and that there would, by this means, be a saving of£200 million. So it is an unreal offer, unless we hear something different from the Opposition.

Mr. Dean

Is the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend was suggesting that if tax reliefs were to be made available, one of the highest priorities should be children in poverty, and that the speediest way of doing it was through the family allowance system with claw-back?

Mr. Ennals

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did precisely this. By raising the threshold of taxation he has helped a large number of families with very small incomes. If the intention is to raise the family allowance just for those below the tax threshold and to remove it from those above, it would have shattering effects upon those with small and modest incomes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

On a point of order. In order to enable the Minister of State to do his homework and to learn what action we would take, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Notice must be given in the proper form.

38. Sir B. Rhys Williams

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he has held with voluntary bodies in regard to the payment of family allowances.

Mr. Ennals

None, Sir. Family allowances are paid through a well-established machinery, and I am not aware of any problem creating a need for consultations on this subject.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although he may not accept the figures of the Child Poverty Action Group, the public is deeply concerned about child poverty and expects the Government to do something about it? Would the hon. Gentleman make an unequivocal statement that the Government propose to take urgent action?

Mr. Ennals

May I give the hon. Gentleman some information? If we make a comparison between 1964 and 1969, we find that the low-wage earners have done substantially better than other sections of the population. Taking account of the Budget, a married couple with two children have 11½ per cent. more money in their pockets than in 1964, a couple with three children have 14½ per cent, more, and a family with four children are 16½ per cent. better off. These are genuine increases in spending power after allowing for all price increases. I therefore cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

Sir A. V. Harvey

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in almost every one of his replies he has referred to what the Tories did in 1964? Is he aware that since January, we have been told nothing about what the Government propose to do in the unlikely event of their winning the election?

Mr. Ennals

For 26 sittings, the Standing Committee on the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill has been considering the Government's long-term social security proposals for the next 20 or 30 years, yet the hon. Gentleman says that we have not presented our proposals. My ears have been pinned back in the hope of getting one clue about what the Opposition have to put in their place.