Income Support (Hansard, 19 October 1994)

§ The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)
My Lords, the rise in numbers from May 1992 to May 1993 is due to an increase in the number of claimants who are over 60, disabled, lone parents and unemployed. The latest figures show a considerable reduction in the rate of increase in the first three groups and a fall in the numbers of unemployed claimants.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome the Minister to his post at the Department of Social Security. Am I right in understanding that his Answer amounted in effect to saying that the rise in numbers was due to everything? I am a little puzzled. The unemployment figures have been falling since December 1992, but the income support figures are continuing to rise. I cannot understand that incongruity; can the Minister help me to do so?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for welcoming me to my post at the Department of Social Security. It certainly appears to bring me to the Dispatch Box quite frequently.
Perhaps I can help the noble Earl. His Question on the Order Paper, which I know came from a previous Written Question, related to figures up to May 1993. The noble Earl is of course right: unemployment was already falling at that point. That is why I was able to say that, for exactly the reason he mentioned, the most recent figures show a decrease in the numbers seeking income support under the unemployed category. The fall in unemployment over the past 20 months or so has been quite considerable.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, is it not a fact that one of the demographic factors—I believe that my noble friend mentioned it—is the 209 increase in the number of elderly people in this country? Can he translate that in relation to the figures that he has given and say how far it may be a separate factor?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. The number of elderly people has increased—and not only the number of elderly in absolute terms; there is an increasing number of very elderly people, who of course require the provision of services such as nursing home care and so on, which costs the system quite a lot of money. That is a major factor. Between May 1992 and May 1993, the figures for the over-60s went up from 1,643,000 to 1,736,000. That line certainly is increasing, unlike the unemployed line, which is coming down.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, can the Minister say when someone becomes very elderly; and is it the same for men as for women?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, I almost feel like saying "pass" on that question in this House, as I think I might get into quite hot water. I believe that the usual definition of the very elderly is over 80.

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, is it not the case that not only are there more families on income support but that they have also become poorer as well? Will the Minister confirm that the real income of the poorest tenth has fallen by over £400 a year since 1979, while the real income of the richest tenth has risen by nearly £14,000 a year? (That was government information, given in response to a parliamentary Question.) Do the Government still believe that the rich are too poor and the poor are too rich?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me a question that is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Measures of wealth are very difficult to quantify, but what is true is that over the 15 years of Conservative government every section of the community has become better off—some, I freely admit, faster than others. What is certainly true is that we currently spend something like £16 billion on income support, which I gather, when one calculates it, works out at £300 a head for every person in our country per year.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, perhaps I may come back on that point. The Minister told the House that the real income of all sections of society has risen. Is the Minister not aware of the figures for households whose income is below average, which show that the real income of the poorest 10 per cent. has fallen by £400 a year since 1979? Is that not a shocking indictment of any "trickle down" theory of economics?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, I stated what was my understanding. The noble Baroness has been in this field for much longer than I have, and I shall certainly check my statistics when I go back to the department. My understanding is that, for example, 210 since 1988, low income families in this country have received on average something like £13 a week extra due to the 1988 reforms that we made.

The Viscount of Falkland
My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me why 25 per cent. of children are on income support, as is mentioned in recent figures?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, the reasons for that will be largely the same as those that I gave to the noble Lord's noble friend at the beginning, but obviously they are concentrated on the unemployment line, and indeed on the lone parent line. It is simply a reality that the number of lone parents in our country has increased very considerably. That is a major factor in increasing the number of children on income support.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, speaking as one of the very elderly Members of this House, who has had the advantage of a detailed study of the figures involved, can we have an assurance from the noble Lord that he will go back to his civil servants and re-instruct them in the art of obtaining correct information? Will he then come back to the House and admit what my noble friend has already said to be true and verifiable; namely, that since 1979 those in the bottom 10 per cent. of the population are in real terms 14 per cent. less well off than they were in 1979? Will he undertake to correct the figures and the impression that he has given today and come back, after consultation, with the truth?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, I have no doubt, given my experience this week, that I shall be invited to the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions in the future on this and related subjects. As I said earlier, I am perfectly prepared to say that I will check the position. If I am wrong, I have no doubt that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be at me fairly frequently to hear me backtrack.

§ Lord Callaghan of Cardiff
My Lords, with reference to the Minister's statement that every section of the community is better off than in 1979, can he explain to me how that can be true, given the large increase in unemployment from something under 1 million to 2½ million? Are those people better off too?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that these things are relative. Of course the increase in unemployment is very worrying. I remind the noble Lord that every government—if I recall correctly, and I say it with a little nervousness at the moment, having been called to account for my statistics a moment ago—since the war, including that of the noble Lord, left office with rates of unemployment higher than when they came in.