§ 1. Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what level of child benefit would restore the value to its May 1979 level.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton)At the last uprating, in November 1981, child benefit would have had to be increased to £5.70 in order to restore the value that it had in May 1979.
§ Mr. BottomleyFirst, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved appointment. Is he aware that an increase this year would put the level back to that of May 1979, but that it would still leave it well behind what it was 27 years ago? Will he confirm that an increase in child benefit could reasonably be seen as equivalent to but better than any scheme to reduce taxation on families?
§ Mr. NewtonI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expression of good will and, indeed, for the murmurs of support from the Benches behind me. I feel that I need them all the more, since my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) is a particularly hard act to follow.
My hon. Friend will recognise that comparisons going back before 1977 can be misleading, because child benefit in part replaced tax allowances which were of variable benefit according to a family's income. My right hon. Friend's commitments about child benefit are an earnest of our awareness of the problem.
As regards any further possible change in the balance between tax allowances and benefits, my hon. Friend will recognise that those issues have arisen in the context of the Green Paper on the taxation of husband and wife and are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI add my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman and hope that his views on child benefit remain the same as they were when he was in Opposition. Will he further confirm that, on the Government's new sick pay arrangements, child benefit must increase to at least £7 to compensate in the first eight weeks when claimants will lose child dependence from the new sick pay scheme?
§ Mr. NewtonI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of good will. I assure him that I remain committed to the views I expressed when in Opposition 706 about the importance of child benefit and the desirability of maintaining it at as high a level as possible for all claimants.
§ Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI congratulate my hon. Friend on his consistency. Does he agree that, with the increasing costs of raising a family, it places a far less burden on the economy to help to meet those costs selectively by raising child benefit than by blanket increases in wages?
§ Mr. NewtonThat view will attract some sympathy from both sides of the House. I am sure that it is a matter that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will have in mind in formulating his proposals.
§ Mr. JohnDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that, so far as social security pensioners are concerned, child benefit must be added to child dependency allowance to get the fair figure? Is not the consequence of the Chancellor' s actions that the effect of the two combined has fallen by 17.8 per cent. for short-term beneficiaries, such as the long-term unemployed, and by 9.6 per cent. for long-term beneficiaries, such as widows? Does he agree that, for many millions, whether that is matched by the Chancellor this afternoon will be the real touchstone of whether his measures are adequate?
§ Mr. NewtonI am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will heed the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if I were to attempt to anticipate what may happen in about an hour's time, my first appearance at the Dispatch Box would be my last.