Family Poverty (Hansard, 28 March 1994)

§ 6. Mr. Winnick
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received over social security provision to deal with family poverty.

§ Mr. Lilley
From time to time, I receive copies of reports and studies from various institutes and other organisations about low-income families.

§ Mr. Winnick
But is not it a disgrace that, whereas in 1979, 9 per cent. of households had incomes below half the national average, the figure is now 25 per cent.—nearly a threefold increase in poverty? Does not that show that, for many people, the Tory Government since 1979 have been a curse?

§ Mr. Lilley
That is nonsense, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There has been a rise in living standards across the country. The average increase in income is about 35 per cent. in real terms. The figures that the hon. Gentleman cites do not reveal any worsening of people's real position—simply a change in the distribution of income, which is occurring in many other countries, too. I urge him to look closely at the figures; he will find that, in the bottom 10 per cent. of households, there are 500,000 reporting zero or negative incomes, mainly consisting of self-employed people, who are none the less able to consume, on average, more than the average person in the population as a whole.

§ Mr. Dicks
With regard to those benefits, can my right hon. Friend confirm whether it is true that a certain Mr. Gerry Adams is receiving social security benefits while he is able to fly halfway round the world to decry the Government? Will he examine that situation and ensure that he is taken off those benefits immediately?

§ Mr. Lilley
I cannot comment on individual cases, but I will refer the question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has responsibility for social security in the Province. I am sure that if there is any evidence of wrongdoing by anyone in that area it will be inquired into.

§ Mr. Ingram
Has the Minister had an opportunity to study in detail the report produced last week by his Department, which showed that £2 billion in benefits remain unclaimed in 1991? Is he prepared to accept that such a shortfall in take-up increases the extent of family poverty in this country? Instead of treating the problem with complacency, as his Department did last week, is he now prepared to accept that the Department has a responsibility and a duty to seek out those many claimants who do not take up the benefits and assist them in so doing?

§ Mr. Lilley
We do not deal with that matter complacently. We are pleased that some 90 per cent. of benefit available is taken up. We want to ensure that those who, for any reason, are less able, knowledgeable or well equipped to claim benefit have the relevant knowledge to enable them to claim. We have been encouraging an increased uptake, particularly in family credit, with some success. That benefit helps people back into work, which means that, ultimately, they draw less benefit from the state but are better off because they are in work. Thus, everybody is better off: the person concerned, the taxpayer and the economy as a whole. We are encouraging that process further.

§ Mr. Evennett
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to target benefit towards those in genuine need and that that policy is widely supported throughout the country? Will he further confirm that, since the Government have been in office, low-income families have benefited from family credit, income support and other benefits, and have done quite well within society because of what the Government have done to help them?

§ Mr. Lilley
My hon. Friend is right. We must try to ensure that the benefit goes to those in need. That objective must be shared by all hon. Members. We have targeted benefits towards low-income families, to whom the extra benefit since 1988 is now worth £1 billion a year. For a typical low-income household, that is worth £13 a week more than it received under the previous regime.