Family Income Supplement (Hansard, 13 July 1971)

§ 6. Mr. Meacher
asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest figure for the total number of successful claims for the family income supplement.

§ 17. Mr. Marks
asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for family income supplement have so far been received ; how many approved ; and what is the estimated payment on those so far approved.

§ 28. Mr. Dalyell
asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the total number of successful claims since the family income supplement was introduced.

§ Sir K. Joseph
By 6th July 43,792 claims for family income supplements had been received : of the decisions so far given 16,844 were favourable and 17,517 unfavourable. It is estimated that the average award is in the region of £1.50 a week.

§ Mr. Heffer
Swindle !

§ Mr. Meacher
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, despite a massive advertising campaign costing more than one third of a million pounds, the total take-up of this benefit, with only three weeks to go to the first day of receipt, is still only 10 per cent. of those eligible, which is ridiculously far short of the right hon. Gentleman's declared objective of 85 per cent. and since this illustrious showpiece of Tory social policy—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member must not make a speech.

§ Mr. Meacher
In view of the apparent failure of this policy, will the right hon. Gentleman state what alternative plans he have to remedy family poverty, on which so far he has made very little impact?

§ Sir K. Joseph
The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that he does not want the extra money to be received by the poorest families.

§ Mr. William Price
That is untrue.

§ Sir K. Joseph
That is the impression that the hon. Gentleman gives, and that is true. The amount of money devoted to the advertising campaign has been £60,000, and not a quarter of a million pounds. My objective to obtain a very high take-up remains. Hon. Gentlemen will judge by the developing result over the rest of the year, and I hope that the whole House hopes with me that we shall have success.

§ Mr. Marks
Is this figure higher or lower than the right hon. Gentleman anticipated at this stage? Would it not have been far better to increase family allowances, as the Conservative Party promised in its election manifesto?

§ Sir K. Joseph
No proposal to increase family allowances that would be practical politics would put in the hands of those families, especially those with only one child, a sum as big as £1.50 a week on average. As for the first part of the question, I confess that I had hoped that the take-up at this stage would be bigger. But my experienced advisers warned me that the take-up of a brand-new benefit would tend to be slow, particularly in the period before any money had been distributed.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On what general grounds were the 17,517 declared unfavourable? This seems to be fairly important.

§ Sir K. Joseph
The question is a very good one. For two-thirds it was because their income exceeded the test limit, and for one-third it was because they were not in what has been defined as full-time work.

§ Mr. O'Malley
Why did the Secretary of State not explain to the House when the Bill was going through that his advisers were saying that the take-up would be low?

§ Sir K. Joseph
Slow.

§ Mr. O'Malley
Either slow or low. Does not this scheme demonstrate once again the undesirability of a massive increase in means-tested benefits that the Government are proposing? Is not the present scheme little but a fraud? Will the Secretary of State confer with the Under-Secretary and ask him to admit that his estimates of an 80 per cent. take-up at the time the Bill went through were absolutely wrong?

§ Sir K. Joseph
No. My advisers thought that the take-up of a new benefit would be slow, not low. I ask the House to be patient over the next few months and see how this develops. It is very important that we should get this extra money into the hands of the poorest working households. I hope that the whole House will agree with that.

§ Mr. Orme
The Secretary of State referred to the question of the family with one child. How many such families have qualified under this scheme? Does he recall, as the House will recall, that the late Iain Macleod gave a firm commitment from the Opposition Front Bench that, irrespective of political unpopularity, a future Tory Government would go for an increase in family allowance? Why have the Government rejected that?

§ Sir K. Joseph
If the hon. Gentleman would care to table a Question, I will certainly give the House details of the distribution between families with one child and those with more than one child. I have already explained that an examination that we conducted when we assumed office revealed that a family allowance increase would have put less 194 money into the hands of the very poorest working families and no money into the hands of the family with one child for a vast increase in public expenditure and a great transfer of money from husbands to wives.