§ Mr. Gordon Brownasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will update in the Official Report the information on the income level of poorer households provided in his reply of 24 October 1983 to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) Official Report column 51, as soon as the 1983 low income families tables are placed in the Library;
(2) how many people in Scotland in 1983 were (i) below, (ii) at and (iii) up to 140 per cent. of the supplementary benefit level on the latest basis and on a basis comparable with 1979 and 1981; what percentage of the total population they represent in each case; what his estimate is of the number of children living in such households in each case; and what percentage of total children they represent in each case;
(3) how many children in Scotland were living in families below supplementary benefit level, on supplementary benefit, and with incomes up to 140 per cent. of supplementary benefit level, classified by employment status; whether they were in one or two parent families in 1983 on the latest basis and on a basis comparable with 1981 and 1979; and what proportion these children made up of the total number of children.
241W
§ Mr. Major[pursuant to his replies, 17 March 1986 c65, and 21 July 1986 c 79–80 and c 89]: Estimates are provided in the tables. All of these estimates are subject to sampling error, but the Scottish estimates of low income assessment
Table 1 Numbers of supplementary benefit assessment units (with or without children):— thousands 1983 Number of Units per cent. of all Units Number of children Great Britain In receipt of Supp B or HBS 3,640 13 1,630 Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 140 (includes RNR < 100) 5,740 21 2,250 of which: Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 100 1,880 7 400 Scotland In receipt of Supp B or HBS 370 14 180 Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 140 (includes RNR < 100) 660 25 220 of which: Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 100 220 8 40
Table 2 Number of persons living in Scotland thousands 1979 per cent. Of total population 1981 per cent. of total population 1983 per cent. of total population In receipt of Supp B or HBS 450 9 480 9 610 13 Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 140 (includes RNR < 100) 620 13 1,030 20 1,080 23 of which: Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 100) 170 4 160 3 300 6
Table 3 Number of children living in supplementary benefit assessment units in Scotland:— thousands Where the head is: In full-time work Unemployed Other 1 parent family one of a couple percentage of all children 1979 In receipt of Supp B or HBS — 60 50 n/a n/a 8 Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 140 (includes RNR < 100) 40 20 40 20 80 8 Of which: Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 100 * * 20 10 10 2 1981 In receipt of Supp B or HBS — 90 60 n/a n/a 11 Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 140 (includes RNR < 100) 200 40 50 40 250 21 Of which: Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 100 * 10 * * 10 1 1983 In receipt of Supp B or HBS — 90 90 80 80 16 Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 140 (includes RNR < 100) 160 20 40 20 190 20 Of which: Not in receipt of Supp B or HBS with RNR < 100 30 10 * * 30 3 Notes:
(i) The Scottish samples have been translated into population estimates using factors based on data for Great Britain as a whole. Since the Family Expenditure Survey response rate may differ from that for Great Britain as a whole and since the extent of the difference may vary from one year to another, it follows that Scottish estimates may be more vulnerable to grossing error than data for Great Britain as a whole. Taken together, these two sources of statistical error make both trends and levels in the Scottish estimates peculiarly difficult to interpret. These statistical problems will be considered as a part of the Low Income Technical Review.
(ii) The assumptions on which these estimates are based are the same as those contained in the "Low Income Families—1983" tables lodged in the Library of the House.
242Wunits that are not receiving supplementary benefit arc particularly prone to this statistical problem. This is because of the small number of sample cases available in the family expenditure survey.
243W(iii) RNR = relative net resources. For a full definition of this term see paragraphs 4 and 5 of "Low Income Families—1983".
(iv) HBS = housing benefit supplement.
(v) A supplementary benefit assessment unit is usually either a single person or a couple with their dependent children if they have any. Dependent children are those aged less than 16 or 16 to 19 if still in full-time non-advanced education.
(vi) "Other" is composed of single-parents, full-time students, full-time workers away from work on part or no sick pay, those of non-pension age not working and not seeking work and the sick and disabled.
(vii) Classifications by employment status and assessment type are mutually exclusive and non-additive.
(viii) "*" denotes a figure of less than 10,000.
§ Dr. McDonaldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish a table showing for 1983 (a) the numbers of families with one, two, three, four or more children living below, at, and up to 140 per cent. of the supplementary benefit level on the latest basis and a basis comparable with 1981 and 1979, (b) how many of these families were in work or out of work and (c) the total number of families with one, two, three, four or more children, on the same basis as his reply of 16 May 1985 to the hon. Member for Thurrock, Official Report, column 224;
(2) if he will provide a breakdown from the low income families 1983 table of the main reasons for people falling below the supplementary benefit level on the same basis as his reply of 14 December 1983 to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) Official Report, column 517;
(3) how many children were living in families below supplementary benefit level, on supplementary benefit, with incomes up to 140 per cent. of supplementary benefit level, classified by employment status, and whether they were in one or two-parent families in 1983 on the latest
244W
Number of Supplementary Benefit Assessment Units with children in Great Britain Thousands Thousands 1979 1 or 2 children1 3 or more children In receipt of Supp B Head in FTW — — Head not in work 360 120 Not in receipt of Supp B with RNR <100 Head in FTW 70 20 Head not in work 60 10 Not in receipt of Supp B with RNR <140 Head in FTW 310 170 Head not in work 180 40 1981 1 child 2 children 3 children 4+ children In receipt of Supp B Head in FTW — — — — Head not in work 340 260 130 70 Not in receipt of Supp B with RNR <100 Head in FTW 30 60 30 10 Head not in work 60 40 20 10 Not in receipt of Supp B with RNR <140 Head in FTW 150 320 140 70 Head not in work 50 70 40 20 1983 In receipt of Supp B Head in FTW — — — — Head not in work 420 320 140 70 Not in receipt of Supp B with RNR <100 basis and on a basis comparable with 1981 and 1979; and what proportion these children make up of the total number of children.
§ Mr. Major[pursuant to his reply, 18 July 1986, c. 665–66]: Estimates are provided in the tables. Amongst those supplementary benefit assessment units that are not in receipt of supplementary benefit with incomes below supplementary benefit level, the majority of those that are entitled to supplementary benefit or housing benefit supplement are pensioners failing to claim small amounts. Of the non pensioner minority within this group a significant number are living in wider relatively well-off households. Of those that are in full time work or self employed, 140,000 are single adults, 40,000 are couples without children and 110,000 are couples with children. Of these couples with children, some 60,000 would not have incomes below supplementary benefit level if they had claimed their entitlement to family income supplement. Those with capital in excess of the prescribed supplementary benefit limit have at least £3,000 available to them and thus have the means of support for day to day living. About 80 per cent. of those unoccupied for no apparent reason and who are required to be available for work are single persons without children.
245W
Thousands Thousands Head in FTW 30 30 30 20 Head not in work 40 30 10 10 Not in receipt of Supp B with RNR < 140 Head in FTW 220 340 200 70 Head not in work 100 70 20 20 1 A more detailed sub-classification by numbers of children cannot be provided without incurring excessive costs.
Total number of families with children in Great Britain 1 child 2 children 3 children 4+ children 1979 2,875 2,978 993 344 1981 2,920 2,970 940 300 1983 2,900 2,900 880 270
Supplementary Benefit Assessment Units not in receipt of supplementary benefit with incomes below supplementary benefit level analysed by benefit entitlement status—Great Britain 1983 Thousands Total number apparently entitled to supplementary benefit or housing benefit supplement but not claiming: 1,120
Number of children living in Supplementary Benefit Assessment Units In Great Britain Thousands Where the head is In full-time work Unemployed Sick or disabled Other One parent One of a couple Percentage of all children 1979 In receipt of Supplementary Benefit — 340 100 420 580 310 7 Not in receipt of Supplementary Benefit with RNR < 100 140 40 20 90 60 230 2 Not in receipt of Supplementary Benefit with RNR < 140 960 120 140 250 200 1,280 11 1981 In receipt of Supplementary Benefit — 650 90 420 620 540 9 Not in receipt of Supplementary Benefit with RNR < 100 210 150 30 140 110 420 4 Not in receipt of Supplementary Benefit with RNR < 140 1,460 390 210 350 300 2,120 19 1983 In receipt of Supplementary Benefit — 980 90 540 770 860 13 Not in receipt of Supplementary Benefit with RNR < 100 160 120 20 100 50 350 3 Not in receipt of Supplementary Benefit with RNR < 140 1,440 310 130 360 210 2,040 18 Notes:
(i) The assumptions on which these estimates are based are the same as those contained in the "Low Income Families—1983" tables lodged in the Library of the House. Due to rounding the sum of the components may not equal the total.
(ii) RNR = relative net resources. For a full definition of this term see paragraphs 4 and 5 of the notes of "Low Income Families—1983".
(iii) FTW = full-time work.
(iv) A supplementary benefit assessment unit is usually either a single person or a couple with their dependent children if they have any. Dependent children are those aged less than 16 or 16 to 19 if still in full-time non-advanced education.
(v) Classification by employment status and assessment unit are mutually exclusive and non-additive.
§ Mr. Gordon Brownasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he can estimate, following the publication of the low income family tables for 1983, to what level (a) family income supplement and (b) child benefit would need to be raised to ensure that all working families with children have an income above the
246W
Thousands Total whose income is below supplementary benefit level but who are not eligible: (i) Full-time work or self employed 290 (ii) Those with capital in excess of prescribed limits 200 (iii) Those unoccupied for no apparent reason who are required to be available for work 270 supplementary benefit entitlement, on the same basis as his reply of 30 July 1984 to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) Official Report, column 109.
§ Mr. Major[pursuant to his reply, 21 July 1986, c. 79–80]:In 1983, around 110,000 full time working assessment units with children has net resources below 247W supplementary benefit level. Some 60,000 of these had an unclaimed entitlement to family income supplement or standard housing benefit. In most cases claim to these entitlements would have raised their net resources above supplementary benefit level. If all entitlements to family income supplement and housing benefit were claimed, then it would be possible to raise the net resources of almost 90 per cent. of the total number of assessment units to above the supplementary benefit level by (a) increasing child benefit by 40 per cent. or (b) increasing the family income supplement prescribed amounts by 30 per cent. If however claimed entitlements to family income supplement and housing benefit remained at present proportions then raising the family income supplement prescribed amounts would have only a negligible effect on the numbers below supplementary benefit level. Raising child benefit by 200 per cent. would raise the net resources of 90 per cent. of assessment units above supplementary benefit levels.