§ 13. Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were in receipt of supplementary benefit in the last week for which statistics are available; and what are the most recent projections made by his Department of the average number of recipients in each of the next three financial years.
§ Mrs. ChalkerAbout 3,200,000 claimants, including school leavers, in August 1980. The most recent published projections for the next three years were given in the 1979 public expenditure White Paper published in March 1980—"The Government's Expenditure Plans 1980–81 to 1983–84" Cmnd. 7841 table 2.12.2 on pages 114–115.
§ Mr. MaxtonDoes the Minister agree that a large proportion of the increases in supplementary benefits is due to the rise in the number of unemployed? Is it not the case that the real value of the flat-rate benefits has been cut and that the projections include the abolition of the earnings related supplement? Does she agree that it is a disgrace that people are being subjected to the indignity of means-tested benefits, which will be more expensive for the Government? Does she agree that it would be better to restore the flat rate benefits and stop the abolition of the earnings-related supplement?
§ Mrs. ChalkerI cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The House knows full well that the measures that have to be taken are not against the unemployed but are intended to bring our public expenditure under control. We estimate that the total number of supplementary benefit claimants, as a result of all the measures, will be about 110,000. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to paint the abatement in unemployment benefit as he did. It is a temporary measure pending taxation which all parties in the House have agreed.
§ Mr. BuchanIs it not an appalling indictment of the Government that their economic and social policies to deal with the economic catastrophe are putting more and more people on to means-tested benefits? Was not the Welfare State constructed on the basis of rights? Is not the hon. Lady replacing that with a mean and squalid form of support? In a single Bill last year 110,000 more people were shoved away from rights on to the means-tested benefits? Is that not a disgrace?
§ Mrs. ChalkerThe House knows that unless we reduce inflation the value of benefits has no real meaning for the people who have to receive them. We know that inflation hits poor people harder than others. We have given full price protection to the recipients of the safety net benefits, the family income supplement and supplementary benefit. In simplifying the supplementary benefit scheme we have directed more resources to those who need it, such as families with children. Nobody welcomes the present number of unemployed and the Government are doing their best to reduce inflation and public expenditure so as to bring down the rate of unemployment as fast as we can.
§ Mr. Ioan EvansWhat action is the Department taking about those who, because they have been unemployed for 12 months, have lost their benefit? I have drawn attention to these cases previously. They receive social- security benefit but have now been informed that because they will not attend a re-settlement camp at Henley-in-Arden they are to be denied any income. What action are the Government taking?
§ Mrs. ChalkerAlthough I spoke to the hon. Gentleman before Christmas on this matter, he gave me the details in the middle of last month. Since I received his letter on 12 January I have had a full investigation made in to the section 10 directions on his two 141 constituents. I shall be writing to him in a few days to let him know the outcome, what has happened and what should happen.