§ 11.11 a.m.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement about supplementary benefits which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Statement is as follows:
"I have today laid before the House draft Regulations containing proposals for increases in supplementary benefits. These draft Regulations require the approval of both Houses of Parliament by Affirmative Resolution. Subject to this approval, the effective date will, as last year, be the first Monday in November.
"I propose that the rate for a single householder should be increased by 8s. a week and that for a married couple by 13s. a week, bringing the single rate up to £5 4s. and the married rate up to £8 10s.—plus, of course, rent. Suitable increases will be made in other rates. I will, with permission, circulate a full list of the proposals in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"These increases will more than restore the real value of the scales brought in last November.
"The current Estimates provide a figure of £485 million for supplementary benefits this year. The proposed increases, which are as usual to be met from the Consolidated Fund, will add about £70 million in a full year. Some 2,700,000 recipients will benefit."
| Following are the details of the Proposed Supplementary Benefit Rates: | ||||||||||
| Present weekly rate | Proposed weekly rate | |||||||||
| Ordinary scale | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | ||||
| (a) husband and wife | … | … | … | … | 7 | 17 | 0 | 8 | 10 | 0 |
| (b) person living alone or single householder | … | … | … | … | 4 | 16 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 0 |
| (c) any other person aged | ||||||||||
| (i) not less than 21 years | … | … | … | … | 3 | 17 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| (ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years | … | … | … | … | 3 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 0 |
| (iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years | … | … | … | … | 2 | 16 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| (iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years | … | … | … | … | 2 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 0 |
| (v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years | … | … | … | … | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| (vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years | … | … | … | … | 1 | 13 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 0 |
| (vii) less than 5 years | … | … | … | … | 1 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 0 |
| Blind scale | ||||||||||
| (a) husband and wife | ||||||||||
| (i) if one of them blind | … | … | … | … | 9 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 15 | 0 |
| (ii) if both of them blind | … | … | … | … | 9 | 18 | 0 | 10 | 11 | 0 |
| (b) any other blind person aged— | ||||||||||
| (i) not less than 21 years | … | … | … | … | 6 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 9 | 0 |
| (ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years | … | … | … | … | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 10 | 0 |
| (iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years | … | … | … | … | 3 | 12 | 0 | 3 | 17 | 0 |
| (iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years | … | … | … | … | 2 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 0 |
| (v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years | … | … | … | … | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| (vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years | … | … | … | … | 1 | 13 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 0 |
| (vii) less than 5 years | … | … | … | … | 1 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 0 |
| Rent addition for non-householders | … | … | … | … | 11 | 0 | 12 | 0 |
§ Notes (i) an allowance for rent is added to the above rates.
§ (ii) Both the existing and the proposed rates given above exclude the 10s.long-term addition which is added to the requirements of persons over pensionable age and under pensionable age (other than the unemployed) who have received supplementary benefit for a period of two years.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement? It has always been the case that those who receive supplementary benefits have not been allowed to fall behind and that the rates have been brought up to date from time to time to keep pace with rises in the cost of living in between the increases in the rates of National Insurance benefit. May I ask the noble Baroness two questions? First, is it not a measure of the rapid increase in the cost of living when only last November the rates were increased and now, just six months later, an announcement is being made about another increase? Is it not a fact, as reported in the Press yesterday, that the rise in the cost of living in the first three months of this year compared with the same period last year was 9½ per cent.? Is it not a fact therefore that the need for these increases simply emphasises the very rapid rise in the cost of living—and, of course, a rise in the cost of living that is likely to go on; so that by November the increase now being proposed will almost certainly not be adequate?
The second question is this. Can the noble Baroness tell us when it has happened 834 in the past that this very short interval has occurred between the one increase and the next? Has this ever happened before? Perhaps I may add a third question. Is it necessary to make an announcement now, so far ahead, of an increase: in November? It is very unusual, surely, for an increase in supplementary benefit, as opposed to a National Insurance rise, for an announcement to be made so far ahead.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, if I may, I will reply to the noble Lord's second question first. The interval will, of course, be 12 months; it is from last November to next November. On the last point, I understand that the Department has felt the need of a greater time span to deal with the necessary machinery; in other words, they have learned from one year to another that it is better to have a longer period of time. I do not accept the noble Lord's point that price increases are necessarily going to follow by November. What the Government are concerned to do is to make sure that the people at the lowest end of the scale are not at risk. Therefore increases are really to meet any 835 possible changes in prices. But I would remind the noble Lord that at the moment the economy is in a very healthy state.
§ LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that this proposed increase will be greatly welcomed by those on fixed incomes?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, while I entirely agree with the noble Lord that this increase will be welcomed, is the noble Baroness aware that, despite all the endeavours and protestations of the Government, they have not been able to hold the cost of living? Will she not therefore accept that this increase, which I understand brings the levels of rates up to the present increase in the cost of living, will be inadequate by November; or will the Government undertake and guarantee that there will be no further increase by November?
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord (I could not quite gather whether he was for or against this increase) that the Government have by their record always shown that they are very concerned about this group in the community, and that if there should be any possible risk they would deal with it. I do not want to widen this discussion into an economic debate, but I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the picture is not quite so black as he would have us believe. Perhaps it is due to a "Friday morning" feeling.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the noble Baroness said she did not gather whether I was for or against the increase. I thought I made it quite clear that it has always been the practice that these rates are stepped up gradually to meet the cost of living. We welcome this necessary step. All I am concerned with is to point out why the need has arisen, and the timing of the announcement.
§ LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that people on fixed incomes have no organised body to negotiate for them and that it is a magnanimous step which the Government are taking on their behalf?
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I thank my noble friend. Indeed, if these 836 people did organise they could rival student power. There is no doubt that this is a compassionate Government.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, if they are as compassionate as all that, why do they not bring forward the date for making this increase, instead of making it in November?
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, the noble Lord would then say that this was just an Election trick.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, while not wishing to widen this into an economic debate, may I ask, having served in the Department, and having in the past had responsibility for doing what the noble Baroness is doing today, if she can make it clear whether these increases (the purposes of which are entirely understood and are supported by everyone) do no more than just make good the loss of purchasing power through the rise in the cost of living between the last increase and today? If not, what exactly is the difference?
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I think I made that point before: that the increase is to take account of any possible change, but not only that. I actually used the phrase, "more than restore the real value", and I think that that is really what we have in mind.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, would not my noble friend agree that these increases are to correspond with the general wage increase and the general increase in income of all the people who are capable of earning; that this is just a compensation to see that the standard of living of this lower income group of people is brought into accord with the general increase in the standard of living that the present Government have brought about?
§ LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, is my noble friend aware——
§ LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, this is an important section of the community that we are discussing. Regarding the time factor to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn has referred, no one knows better than he does that there are administrative difficulties and that there has to be some delay 837 between the announcement and the time of the operation.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.