HC Deb 15 November 1983 vol 48 cc705-6
1. Mr. Anderw F. Bennett

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now estimate the number of people living in poverty.

The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson)

There is no generally accepted definition of poverty on which such an estimate could be made.

Mr. Bennett

Does the Minister accept that there seems to be no end to the Government's enthusiasm to extend poverty? Not only are they failing to uprate benefits in line with inflation by about 1 to 1.5 per cent., but they are extending the number of people who are having to draw social security because they are unemployed, and in addition they are proposing to put up fuel charges next spring by 5 per cent., which is an extra 2 per cent. on the amount allowed for in the uprating.

Dr. Boyson

The uprating that will take place next Monday is in line with inflation, where it is not in advance of inflation. The uprating in child benefit, unemployment benefit and other benefits is in advance of inflation. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the higher we raise supplementary benefits, the more people can claim to be in poverty.

Mr. John Townend

Does my hon. Friend agree that young people without permanent accommodation in London, who, according to recent reports in the press, are receiving over £100 a week in social security benefits, are not living in poverty?

Dr. Boyson

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Winnick

Leaving aside the cheap sneer of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), is the Minister aware that those living on small incomes will be seriously harmed by the proposed increases in gas and electricity prices? Is he further aware that those who do not receive supplementary benefit but are eligible for rent or rate rebates do not receive a penny piece to assist them with their fuel bills in the winter months?

Dr. Boyson

Fuel costs paid as part of supplementary benefits have over the years increased at a rate higher than the increase in the cost of fuel. Those who are not on supplementary benefit receive the pension in the round and are responsible for the expenditure of that money. One cannot adjust 100 different inputs to every expenditure.

Mr. Winnick

That is a disgraceful answer.

Mr. John

When the star chamber reached the decision to raise gas and fuel prices, was the Minister asked to estimate the effect on the budget of a social security beneficiary? If so, what was his estimate? If not, does that not show the contempt in which the aptly named star chamber holds the poor?

Dr. Boyson

I was not present at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and today would be the wrong time to refer to public spending, as a statement will be made on Thursday.

Mr. Meadowcroft

The Minister failed to mention housing benefit in his run round the benefits that may be changed. Is that because this week there will be a further imposition on those receiving housing benefit and that that will increase poverty?

Dr. Boyson

As I said, a statement on public expenditure will be made on Thursday. If the hon. Gentleman is present, he will find out what is to happen.

Mr. Frank Field

The Minister may not accept that there is a common definition for poverty, but does he accept that everybody else does? The recently released figures from the family expenditure survey show a 40 per cent. increase in the numbers on low incomes. Does the Minister accept that that is a direct result of the Government's policy? If not, who or what is responsible for kicking down towards the bottom end of our society an extra 4.5 million people in the first two years of Tory rule?

Dr. Boyson

In 1976, under the Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the then Minister for Social Security, said: Poverty is a relative matter, and the Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn."—[Official Report, 26 October 1976; Vol. 918, c. 255.] Similarly, in 1978 the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said: The Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn."—[Official Report, 26 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 766.] The hon. Gentleman referred to 4.5 million unemployed. There has been an increase in long-term unemployment, which is wanted by no one on either side of the Chamber, and that has led to an increase in supplementary benefit. I know that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely worried about this matter. The value of supplementary benefit is higher in real terms than when we came into power.