§ Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, Official Report, 1 May, column 642, what is his analysis of the reason why it would be rare for families drawing supplementary benefit to have maximum disregarded earnings; if he will publish the figures on which this statement is based; and how they were obtained.
§ Mrs. ChalkerThe small number of families on supplementary benefit where the man has part-time earnings is thought to reflect lack of opportunity for part-time work in many occupations. I indicated in my original answer how few unemployed claimants had any disregarded earnings; more precisely there were 8,000 such claimants out of 598,000 153W in November 1978. The figures were obtained from the annual statistical inquiry, which is based on the records of a sample of claimants.
§ Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, using the same assumptions as in the reply given to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North in the Official Report, 1 May, column 660, how much extra spending power a married man with two children aged four and six years would enjoy if he increased his earnings from £45 per week to £85 per week.
§ Mrs. ChalkerOn the assumptions used in table 4 in my earlier reply, if the £45-a-week man increased his earnings to £85 he would retain his family income supplement of £7.80 for the balance of the 12-month period for which it was awarded. His children's free welfare milk and free school meals would continue for the same period. He would pay an extra £12 in income tax and £2.70 in national insurance contributions and lose his rent and rate rebates. Thus, on the given assumptions his gain in the short or medium term would be £16.55 a week.
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, this indicates that the effects of the so-called poverty trap cannot be judged by quoting the figures of net weekly spending power in the final columns of the illustrative tables. Any comparisons of net weekly spending power should extend over a minimum period of a year, taking account of pay rises and other changes in earnings, increases in the levels of personal tax allowances and of social security and other benefits, and other changes in family circumstances in that period. It is not normally possible to make any forward comparison; for example, in the case quoted by my hon. Friend, there are factors as yet unknown such as the rent and rate rebate levels from November 1980 and the tax changes in next year's Budget.