§ 8. Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations she has received over the poverty trap from organisations working in the poverty field.
§ 9. Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations she has received over the poverty trap from organisations working in the poverty field.
§ Mr. MeacherNone, Sir.
§ Mr. BottomleyI am surprised at that answer. Do the Government intend to reduce the number of families suffering in the poverty trap? What steps do they intend to take to deal with the elements that make up the poverty trap?
§ Mr. MeacherWe have already confirmed improvements to non-means-tested benefits, namely, the non-contributory invalidity pension, the mobility allowance and the child benefit. We have also increased the family allowance, for the first time since a Labour Government last increased it. We did that last April. 175 That shows a measure of our determination to get rid of this problem.
§ Mr. HooleyIs my hon. Friend aware that the latest child benefit for lone parents exemplifies this trap very well? There have been bitter complaints that some parents will be worse off if they claim this benefit and that a great many others will be only marginally better off by doing so.
§ Mr. MeacherOver 250,000 one-parent families are expected to make some gain as a result of the child interim benefit, and probably 45,000 will gain the full amount. The reason why the child interim benefit is not disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes is that the family allowance, which it replaces, is not disregarded either. It would be most odd to disregard the child interim benefit in April 1976 and not to disregard the child benefit in April 1977. The other reason is that, as a Labour Government, we do not want to entrench people more deeply in means tests.
§ Mr. GristWill the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Education is proposing to introduce a new means-tested benefit for school transport? Will that not make the position even worse? What are the Government proposing to do to get out of this ludicrous situation and to make sure that it does not continually recur?
§ Mr. MeacherI have indicated that the money benefits that we have introduced will not make the problem worse. As for the question whether the benefit to which the hon. Member refers—which, of course, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education—makes the poverty trap worse, given that there is a run-on of benefits, and that they will not be adjusted immediately but will continue until the end of the year, when there is normally an increase in the income limits, there will be no worsening of the poverty trap.
§ Mr. MolloyIn view of the representations by the Conservatives that we should increase public expenditure in one direction or another, and given that, on the other hand, they want public expenditure cut in all spheres except one—defence—will my hon. Friend have consultations with the Secretary of State for Defence 176 to see whether he can contribute any cuts in defence expenditure, thus satisfying one of the desires of the Conservative Party?
§ Mr. MeacherThe best action that the Conservatives could take, if they were serious about ending the problem of the poverty trap, would be to change their leader, because she seems determined to cut public expenditure and to increase defence spending.