§ Mr. Fieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list (a) the number of claimants affected, (b) the annual loss per week for (i) a single claimant and (ii) a married couple, (c) the cumulative weekly loss to each of these two groups of claimants, (d) the annual Exchequer savings for (i) 1980, (ii) 1981 and (iii) the estimated savings for 1982, of the Government's decision not to follow the convention of raising the long term supplementary benefit rates in line with earnings or prices, whichever was the greater;
163W(2) if he will list the number of children affected by the Government's decision not to raise the child additions for those children whose parents qualified for the long term national insurance benefits in line with prices or earnings, whichever is the greater; and if he will also list (a) annual loss and (b) the cumulative loss in respect of eligible children of these changes together with the cumulative saving to date to the Exchequer;
(3) if he will list (i) the number of claimants affected, (ii) the annual loss per week for (a) a single and (b) a married claimant, (iii) the cumulative weekly loss to each of these two groups of claimants, (iv) the annual Exchequer savings for (a) 1980, (b) 1981 and (c) the estimated savings for 1982, of the decision to break the link between raising the long term rate of national insurance benefits in line with prices or earnings, whichever was the greater;
(4) if he will estimate the number of children affected by the Government's decision not to raise the long term supplementary benefit rate in line with earnings or prices, whichever was the greatest; and if he will also list (i) the annual loss and (ii) the cumulative loss in respect of those eligible children together with the cumulative Exchequer savings.
§ Mrs. ChalkerThere are an estimated 10.2 million national insurance beneficiaries, with 390,000 dependent children, who receive benefits that were previously linked by law to the movement of prices or earnings, whichever was greater. In addition a total 2.1 million claimants receive the long-term rates of supplementary benefit. There has never been a separate long-term scale rate for supplementary benefit children and the scale rates are not normally increased in line with earnings. This position is unchanged. To estimate precisely the levels of benefit that would obtain had the former link between the uprating of pensions and long-term benefits and the movement of prices or earnings, whichever was the greater, been maintained, would require hypothetical assumptions about what forecasts of prices and earnings the Government would have made, and what action they would have taken if those estimates had turned out to be too high or too low. In my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 10 February 1982—[Vol. 17, c.414–5]—I gave details of one set of assumptions on the basis of which pensions and other long-term benefits might have been about 4 per cent. higher had the link not been broken.
An increase of 4 per cent. in pensions and other long-term benefits would cost about £700 million in a full year.
§ Mr. Fieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the number of children affected by the decision not to raise the child addition in line with prices for children whose parents qualify for the short term national insurance benefits; and if he will also list (i) the annual loss and (ii) the cumulative loss in respect of eligible children together with the cumulative savings to the Exchequer;
(2) what is the estimated saving from the Government's decision not to make good the shortfall of 2 per cent. in all short term national insurance benefits; and if he will list the average loss of benefit for (a) a single and (b) a married claimant, giving the numbers of claimants who will be affected.
§ Mrs. ChalkerThe information is as follows:
164WThe estimated cost to the national insurance fund in a full year of an extra 2 per cent. on expenditure on
- —short term national insurance benefits—£45 million
- —short term child dependency addition—£½ million
There would be an effect on supplementary benefit depending upon whether the shortfall was made good on that benefit.
Estimated average number of beneficiaries at any one time in 1982–83—2,010,000
Estimated average number of children at any one time in 1982–83—760,000
Decisions about the rates of benefit payable from November 1982 will be announced as usual at the time of the Budget.
§ Mr. Fieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list (i) the number of claimants affected, (ii) the annual loss per week for (a) a single claimant and (b) a married couple, (iii) the cumulative weekly loss for each of these two groups of claimants and (iv) the annual Exchequer savings (a) to the end of 1981 and (b) the estimated savings for 1982, of the decision to reduce by 5 per cent. below the estimated rate of inflation unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, industrial injury benefit and maternity allowance.
§ Mrs. ChalkerThe information available for the benefits listed is as follows:
1980–81 1981–82 Numbers of beneficiaries 1,760,000 1,920,000 November 1980
November 1981
Loss per week: single claimant £0.90 £1.00 married couple £1.50 £1.60
Reduced expenditure by National Insurance Fund £ million 1980–81* 32 1981–82 109 * Part year. There is an offsetting cost on supplementary benefit.
§ Mr. Bestasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated cost of uprating the benefits which he has decided not to uprate, specifying the cost against each individual benefit.
§ Mrs. ChalkerAll final decisions on the uprating of benefits will be taken as usual at the time of the Budget. The estimated saving arising from the 2 per cent. shortfall on various benefits were given in my reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) today.
§ Mr. Fieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average loss to claimants drawing (a) sickness benefit, (b) injury benefit, (c) maternity benefit and (d) widow's allowance, of the phasing out of the earnings-related supplements; and what are the estimated annual savings to the Exchequer for abolishing the supplements to each of these benefits.
§ Mrs. ChalkerIt is estimated that the average weekly amounts of earnings-related supplement or addition that, but for section 4 of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980, would have been paid to those becoming entitled to it in 1982 and claiming the benefits shown would have been: 165W
Sickness benefit £13.00 Unemployment benefit £11.20 Injury benefit £14.10 Maternity allowance £8.80 Widows allowance £14.90 The reduced expenditure by the national insurance fund on these benefits in 1982–83 is in the region of £445 million with an offsetting cost on supplementary benefit of about £150 million.
§ Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what the supplementary benefit rates would have been in November 1981 if they had been raised since September 1951 in line with prices; and if he will estimate how many people would be eligible for such a level of supplementary benefit.
§ Mrs. ChalkerThe scale rate for a married couple would have been approximately £20.75. The November 1981 rates for a married couple are £37.75 and £47.35 for the ordinary and long-term scales respectively. There was no long-term rate under the national assistance scheme.
Estimates of numbers eligible on the assumption made by my hon. Friend could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and after making further assumptions about movements in other benefits such as retirement pensions.
§ Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of council house tenants in Wales receive a rent rebate by way of supplementary benefit through his Department, as at the latest available date.
§ Mrs. ChalkerAbout 25 per cent. of council tenants in Wales had their rent included in their supplementary benefit assessment in December 1980.
§ Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that the supplementary benefit scheme makes adequate provision for poor people to pay their water rates; and if he will review this provision to reduce the number of disconnections of the domestic supply.
§ Mrs. ChalkerWater charges are already included in full in the assessment of supplementary benefit. If a beneficiary repeatedly fails to pay his water charges, arrangements can be made, providing his supplementary benefit entitlement is sufficient, to pay the water charges element, plus a standard amount for arrears, direct to the water authority.