HC Deb 03 August 1971 vol 822 cc1307-13
2. Mr. McCrindle

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider amending the requirement under the Family Income Supplement Scheme that the beneficiary must be in full-time employment when such beneficiary is a widowed or divorced woman.

Sir K. Joseph

I am keeping a close watch on the progress and effectiveness of the scheme particularly as it affects women who are bringing up children on their own. I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. McCrindle

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be anxious that this unique scheme should have the maximum effect, and I would like to suggest to him that a number of the women described in the Question are debarred for no better reason than that they go out to work for only a limited period whereby to look after their children. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in a future review that these people should be allowed as categories included in any extension of the scheme?

Sir K. Joseph

I will certainly bear that point in mind. The House may like to know that about 25 per cent. of the awards so far given are to single-parent families.

Mr. Dalyell

Has the close watch revealed, since the last time we had Questions to the Secretary of State, why so many families should not be claiming?

Sir K. Joseph

I think there are Questions on the Order Paper to which the answer would be more appropriately given on that subject.

Mr. O'Malley

Since there seems to be considerable confusion both in this House and outside as to what constitutes full-time employment under the terms of the Act, could the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what full-time employment is under the terms of the Act?

Sir K. Joseph

Under the Regulations under the Act, 30 hours per week.

4. Mr. Skinner

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he now has to increase the number of successful applications for family income supplement.

Sir K. Joseph

The publicity campaign is continuing. The number of successful applications is continuing to increase.

Mr. Skinner

Is the Minister aware that the figure of 20,000 successful applicants divided into the number of constituencies represents about 32 apiece, in my case two in each parish, and they take some finding? Does he also realise that an average payment of £2 per week per person comes to about £2 million instead of the £8 million which he was bragging about this time last year? What will he do about this, apart from paying the cost of television advertising?

Sir K. Joseph

I do not think that I have bragged about anything connected with this scheme. It will put much-needed money into the households of the very poorest wage earners. It will take time to acquaint the under 1 per cent. of the working population involved of their rights, and the Government have just embarked on the second stage of advertising for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Allaun.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

How much is Mrs. Proops paid?

Sir K. Joseph

With permission, Mr. Speaker, since that question seeks to impugn an individual, I must say that Mrs. Proops had every right to ask for a fee for her advertising, but she voluntarily forwent a fee and is doing the service for nothing.

Hon. Members

Withdraw !

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am being asked to withdraw. I made an interjection and asked how much, but the Minister did not say how much the fee was.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This just shows the trouble the House gets into from sedentary interruptions.

Mr. Frank Allaun

Coming to more informed matters, why has only one in four of the 160,000 applications expected actually been made, whether successful or not? Does not this indicate that the flaw in this and similar schemes of the Government is that they are based on the assumption that there are large numbers of people ready to hold out their hands for anything? This just is not true. There are many poor people who are too proud to do this, and that is the weakness in all these Government schemes.

Sir K. Joseph

I do not think that conclusion can be drawn; 50,000 people have already applied, about half of whom have been allotted awards. Until today no payments have been made. Until last week no advertising was done by television. We shall need several months—and it may be perhaps well into next year—before we can judge how successful this scheme is in reaching those for whom it is intended. So far I am not discouraged by the response.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to the possibility that the Inland Revenue department might automatically provide the names of people eligible for this supplement?

Sir K. Joseph

I think that raises very dangerous possibilities that my hon Friend might not wish to pursue. Perhaps my hon. Friend might wish to pursue this, but many hon. Members on both sides of the House might not support him in that.

8. Mr. Lane

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now give his latest estimate of the number of families who will be entitled to benefit from the Family Income Supplement Scheme.

Sir K. Joseph

The number given on Second Reading was nearly 190,000; this may be on the high side.

Mr. Lane

Would it not be helpful if hon. Members opposite, instead of denigrating a novel scheme which the previous Government did not manage to introduce, were to take every opportunity in their many speeches during the recess to publicise the scheme among their constituents?

Sir K. Joseph

Yes, certainly, and I am sure that hon. Members in their surgeries are drawing attention to these benefits.

Mrs. Shirley Williams

Of course we are, but we think the scheme is a bad one. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on Second Reading of the Family Income Supplements Bill he said: The finances presume that we shall have an 85 per cent. take-up. I will do my best to do that, and better ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 227.] We on this side of the House replied that we did not for one moment believe that the take-up would be anything like as high as this. If we show ourselves to be right within the next six months, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw this abortive scheme and replace it with a decent scheme of family allowance increases?

Sir K. Joseph

I shall certainly draw the lessons that can be sensibly drawn from our experience over the next months and year. It was my duty to give Parliament the best estimate I could of the likely cost, and I had to base that on an estimate and an aim as to the take-up. That is where the figures come from.

10. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest number of applicants for family income supplement; how many have been accepted and how many rejected; and what is the average award.

15. Mr. Meacher

ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures for successful applications for the family income supplement, and of this total, how many have been awarded a grant of £4 per week.

Sir K. Joseph

Up to 27th July 56,229 claims for family income supplement had been received; of the decisions so far given 23,152 were favourable and 23,301 unfavourable. In addition, over 20,000 families on supplementary benefit but wage-stopped will benefit automatically when the F.I.S. Scheme starts. As regards the average award, I have no figure later than that which I gave in my reply to the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 13th July. At that time we estimated that about 8 per cent. of awards are in the range £3.60 to £4 a week.—[Vol. 821, c. 191–4.]

Mr. Hamilton

In view of the derisory results of this scheme—[An HON. MEMBER: "Derisory?"]—yes, because the right hon. Gentleman himself said that he was not satisfied with the results up to date—will the right hon. Gentleman now give an assurance, which he did not give to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), that if in 12 months' time the results do not come up to the estimate which he made on Second Reading, he will undertake to have another look at the desirability of returning to the election pledge and solve this problem by family allowances—including, we hope, family allowances for the first child?

Sir K. Joseph

I should be very reluctant to commit myself to withdraw the benefit from families with only one child, which is what that would involve. I cannot believe that an increased income as from this week to some 43,000 families, as a result of one phase of advertising occurring before any payment had ever been made, is so discouraging. I believe that 43,000 households from this week will be very glad that this scheme has been introduced.

Mr. Meacher

Will the Secretary of State not acknowledge that this miserable figure of 11 per cent. take-up means that the Government's whole anti-poverty strategy is stillborn? Will he note for future policy-making the stark contrast between the 100 per cent. take-up of his over-80 pensions, because people take those benefits as of right, and the wretched 11 per cent. take-up of family income supplement?

Sir K. Joseph

The hon. Member is not quite right. Part of the over-80 benefit had to be applied for, and the high take-up was the result of a quite large advertising campaign. I should not like the hon. Gentleman's wrong calculation to get on record. So far 23 per cent. of the estimated number entitled are from this week receiving benefit.

Mr. McCrindle

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the best advertising agent he could employ is likely to be the man who from this week will receive the extra money?

Sir K. Joseph

Yes, and that is why the latest advertising campaign emphasises those who are already in receipt of it. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House should not under-estimate that for the first time an effective step is being taken to relieve those on the wage-stop.

Mr. Dalyell

Has any pilot study been undertaken in any area of the country to discover the reasons why people are not taking up benefit?

Sir K. Joseph

One is to be undertaken in September.

Mr. Dalyell

Where?

Sir K. Joseph

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer at the moment. I am taking advice about a thoroughly typical area.

Captain W. Elliot

Would my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government identify an area of want, provide the resources to help the people in it and give the matter the maximum publicity, there is very little more they can do? Will he resist a request from the other side to plaster the whole area with money, which will only mean that those in real need will not get enough?

Sir K. Joseph

I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend is right. These families by hypothesis are people in work, despite the fact that the benefits for being out of work are higher than their household income. They are very good people, but they need education by advertising and personal help on how to obtain what is now their right.

Mrs. Shirley Williams

If that scheme does not reach those intended, it is a bad scheme and should be withdrawn? We have asked whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider in six months' or a year's time what the take-up then is and whether he will be honest enough, if that take-up is below the majority, to withdraw the scheme and admit he is wrong?

Sir K. Joseph

I am as anxious as the hon. Lady to get the money into the hands that need it. Obviously, if it fails to reach the majority of those entitled to it, the Government will have to find better methods of helping those people. I doubt whether it will mean withdrawing the scheme, but may mean refining it.