HC Deb 27 July 1976 vol 916 cc233-5
7. Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the take up of the invalid care allowance.

Mr. Alfred Morris

I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on 12th July. We are continuing to take all suitable opportunities to underline the advantages of the new benefit. In this regard, I should like to emphasise again that the new allowance not only provides non-means-tested help where only means-tested benefits have been available hitherto, but also that those who are entitled to the allowance are credited with class 1 national insurance contributions.

Mr. Finsberg

Naturally I am grateful for that reply. Can the Minister tell the House roughly the amount of public expenditure that would be involved if married women were brought into the scheme?

Mr. Morris

I can only make a "guesstimate". My best guesstimate is that the additional cost would be about £25 million. I have said before that many hon. Members seem to believe that the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole. Those who want us to reduce the totality of public expenditure are the very people who want us to increase certain elements of it. They seem to believe that the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

Mr. Ovenden

Many of the families affected by this new allowance are unsure of the right to claim this and the attendance allowance at the same time. What action is the Minister taking to make people aware of both entitlements?

Mr. Morris

I have been in contact with hon. Members on both sides of the House in an attempt to get maximum publicity for the new benefit. My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The attendance allowance is payable in addition to the invalid care allowance. The mobility allowance is payable also to the same household, and there is an income disregard of £6 a week plus class 1 national insurance contributions. Some people have said, or implied, that we are doing too much, but they should look at the alternative costs, both human and financial, of forcing people into institutions when they could otherwise live in the community.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

An Opposition Prayer on this matter has been on the Order Paper for some months. It was put down to give the House an opportunity to debate the Regulations and the problems arising from the new benefit before it came into payment. The Government are surely not trying to avoid a debate in this area in the same way as they are chopping more controversial debates. Will the Minister ask the Leader of the House to make time for a full and proper debate on this subject?

Mr. Morris

We are certainly not seeking to avoid a debate on this benefit. I would welcome it. It is not for me to reply to the question of allocation of parliamentary time. The hon. Member has made his point, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take it fully into account.