HC Deb 14 November 1988 vol 140 cc730-2
3. Mr. Frank Field

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for the take-up of family credit.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore)

Since the start of the new scheme, just over 400,000 claims have been received. At the end of October over 248,000 families were receiving family credit. In addition, on the latest information available, 56,400 claims were on hand, but in 36,4000 of those we were waiting for replies to inquiries to employers or to the claimant.

Mr. Field

By what date do the Government expect to achieve their 60 per cent. target take-up of family credit? Given that child benefit was frozen to target resources on the poorest, if that modest target is not met by then, will the Government reconsider their strategy?

Mr. Moore

The figure is still nothing like as good as I should like it to be. It is nearly 40 per cent., and there has been a slower start than we expected. I expect to see encouragement from hon. Members on both sides of the House, because I remember that Opposition Members thought, sensibly, that family credit was an intelligent way in which to help families.

The hon. Gentleman will join me in being delighted that although the take-up rate is not what we should like it to be—I shall not give a date because we are about to introduce new take-up campaigns—the amount of money being expended, which is of relevance to the issue, is in excess of the £400 million that we thought might be available in this area; in other words, more than double what was going to family income supplement.

Mr. Couchman

As an employer of many part-time staff who are not on generous incomes, I am not aware of ever having been informed either of the former FIS or of family credit. Will my right hon. Friend, when he sends out national insurance notification in the next few weeks, inform employers accordingly, so that they may advise their staff of this benefit's availability?

Mr. Moore

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I had thought that the Department of Employment carried out a programme during the latter part of the summer to attract the attention of employers, both large and small, to the opportunities that exist and the current position. We are considering this area, as I clearly said in the uprating statement, and repeat now. Those who would like to see people in low-paid work should note the sensible remarks of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in an article in The Guardian on 9 November when he said that the objective of welfare policy for the 1990s should be to reward people on low incomes who try to improve their own and their family's lot. Any extra activities in that area from all parts of the House that can enhance that objective will be welcome.

Mr. Andrew MacKay

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disturbingly low level of family credit take-up could be improved if one could ensure that the mother was more often the recipient?

Mr. Moore

I tried reminding the House in the uprating statement, and I re-checked before questions today, that the mother is the person able and liable to claim family credit. Several right hon. and hon. Members seem to be in some doubt about this point, but that is provided for under the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1987, under section 1(1)A of the Social Security Act 1986. It is clear that only in exceptional circumstances will family credit go to the father rather than to the mother.

Mr. Wigley

Is the Secretary of State aware of the difficulties faced by the self-employed and those on low pay—especially those working in small-scale agriculture or tourism? Is the Minister aware also of the requirements imposed by local offices for applicants to produce audited accounts for the six months prior to the date of their claim? Is he further aware of the tremendous bureaucratic imposition and cost that that requirement involves? Has the right hon. Gentleman yet found a way of streamlining the procedure so payments may be made more quickly to people in need?

Mr. Moore

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible contribution, because we all have the same purpose in mind. There has been some debate on the point that he raises. The intention was to improve the opportunity for such employers. Consultations are under way and I hope that the very point that the hon. Gentleman makes will be taken out of debate, because I want to see take-up encouraged rather than discouraged.

Mr. Robin Cook

Has the Secretary of State forgotten that there is a long history of means-tested benefits failing to hit their targets? Does he recollect that family income supplement never reached more than half those entitled to receive it? Now that family credit has failed to achieve even that pass mark, why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that if he really wants to target help on mothers, the only guaranteed way of doing so is through a decent level of child benefit?

Mr. Moore

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider more carefully at this early stage of family credit the proposition that seems to be creating difficulty for his party. I refer to the moral difficulty in which he might find himself in trying to disagree in the long term with serious attempts to help specifically families in work on low incomes. I would have thought that ours was the sensible way to address national policy, whereas in an interesting magazine interview that I read in the latter part of the summer, the hon. Gentleman makes it clear—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member has difficulty with some of his hon. Friends below the Gangway, but I shall endeavour to answer the specific points that he made in a long article in Poverty, in referring to the nature of what I thought was his party's views on the subject: The objectives of the Government in redefining the welfare benefit system away from the concept of a national social insurance which protects everybody into a system which helps only those who, as they put it, are in need … What we propose is the precise reverse. That does not seem to be the view of the hon. Member for Birkenhead. When the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is less confused, I hope that he will join me in trying to target additional help more effectively through family credit.