§ Q5. Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the change in the number of families living below the supplementary benefit line since June, 1970; and whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of the Environment, Health and Social Security, and Employment, in reducing this figure.
§ The Prime MinisterA precise estimate cannot be made until the relevant statistics of earnings movements become available later in 1971. The best judgment that the Department of Health and Social Security is at present able to make is that there has probably been a reduction in the number of such families since June, 1970. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes".
§ Mr. MeacherDespite that extraordinary conclusion, will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless confirm that the special survey of the low-paid, which for several months the Government have been too embarrassed to publish, reveals that there are more than 1 million families in which the breadwinner in full-time work is earning a wage less than the supplementary benefit poverty line? Does he not agree that with the de-escalation of wages in the public sector, in which most of these 1638 low-wage earners are to be found, higher health service charges and other increased charges, for all of which the Government are directly responsible, the poor today are poorer under the Conservative Administration than they have ever been?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise about the low-paid being mainly in the public sector. In any case, many of them are covered by individual councils. The Government have taken action to deal specifically with low-wage-earning families. A family of four children with an income of up to £17 a week will gain twice as much from the family income supplement as a similar family with £100 a week will receive from the October and Budget measures.
§ Mr. William HamiltonDoes not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it may not be in the interests of certain workers under the Government's proposals to seek a wage increase, because the increase might be more than offset by the increased charges which they will then become subject to? Indeed, there might be a growth of demands for wage decreases by some in order to qualify for the means-tested services which the Government are now introducing.
§ The Prime MinisterThat is one aspect of the matter that we had to consider carefully when creating the family income supplement. But I do not believe that there is genuine evidence that trade union effectiveness on behalf of the lower-paid workers will be undermined by the F.I.S.