HL Deb 16 October 1989 vol 511 cc645-6

2.45 p.m.

Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they agree with the report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies which concludes that their revised method of calculating the number of people with below half average income reduces previous figures by approximately 1 million.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)

My Lords, no. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has produced figures which overstate the numbers with low living standards by assuming that those living in the same household do not share their resources. In virtually all households, the people living together are closely related. It is unreasonable to assume that young adults living in the parental home, or elderly relatives living with their sons or daughters, do not share in the general living standards of the household. By presenting figures on personal incomes, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has overstated the numbers with low living standards by approximately 1 million.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which is an independent and much respected body, agreed with the Social Services Select Committee in the other place that the government changes made in the calculation of the poverty statistics: were made for 'political' rather than 'bona fide methodological' reasons"? Does the Minister agree that the only way in which to reduce the number of poor people in society is by the use of appropriate policies and not by fiddling the statistics?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not accept my Answer. I accept that the Institute of Fiscal Studies is an independent body. We responded to the Social Services Select Committee in our White Paper, Cmnd. 523. I thought that the original Answer I gave dealt with that point.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that when the official figures reflect adversely upon the Government's policies it is now standard government practice to seek a change in the basis upon which those figures are compiled? Is there not evidence for that, for example, in the 29th amendment that is now to be made to the definition of "unemployment"? Is it not the case that the Government of the present day spend far more time departmentally and ministerially on fiddling the figures than on dealing with the problems to which the statistics relate?

Lord Henley

My Lords, that is absolute rubbish. In Her Majesty's Government's response to the Social Services Select Committee, the Government announced that because of serious methodological weaknesses that would be the final edition of the old LIF figures, and that we were changing to what we considered to be a better way of looking at those on below average income.