HL Deb 27 October 1982 vol 435 cc485-7

2.57 p.m.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what the additional expenditure on social security, including national insurance benefits, would be in the current year if all the cuts made by the Government in this sphere since 1979 were fully restored in real terms.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, if savings made in the social security programme by the Government since we came to office had not been made, the total social security programme would cost about £1.5 billion more in 1982–83 than the £32 billion already estimated as the cost this financial year.

Lord Banks

My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him, in view of the fact that the cuts mean much to the recipients and yet, according to the figure he has given, the sum, although substantial, is still small compared with the total overall social security budget, whether the Government will seriously consider restoring the penalties and thus relieving hardship, increasing demand and reducing unemployment, and indeed going some way to pay for the cost of the increase of benefit?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I think it is true to say that the word "cuts" is not wholly appropriate in this context. Only one benefit has actually been removed, and that is of course the earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit, although I would accept of course that certain benefits have not been increased at the rate that some would wish. But these decisions have to be taken in the context of the necessity to contain public expenditure overall, and I can give the noble Lord no assurance that they will be restored.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, does the figure that the noble Lord quoted include the cuts in real terms which have arisen from the failure of the Government to increase particular benefits in line with the cost of living, such as the death grant, which has remained constant since 1964?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the figure I gave was a cash figure and not a real figure, as the noble Lord was asking.

Lord Banks

My Lords, does the figure which the noble Lord gave include the cost of restoring the child benefit to its real value in 1979?

Lord Trefgarne

No, my Lords. The figure I gave did not include the item to which the noble Lord referred.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, does the noble Lord have the figure he gave broken down so that he could tell us how much of that figure of £1.5 billion, if I got the figure correctly, relates to the savings that the Government have made at the expense of the unemployed by cutting out the earnings-related benefit?

Lord Trefgarne

Yes, my Lords, the figure I gave included the money saved from that source.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I was asking whether the figure had been broken down so as to enable the Minister to say how much has been saved by the Government at the expense of cutting the unemployment benefit.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, unemployment benefit as such has not been cut, of course; it is the earnings-related supplement. I do not have a precise figure for the sum that has been saved by that change, but it is of the order of £300 million.