§ Mr. MeacherTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to give a substantive answer to the questions of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, tabled for priority written answer on 5 March, on information on(a) the percentage of and real terms 596W increase in spending on benefits attributable to an increase in the number of beneficiaries and (b) the total number of benefit claimants between 1979–80 and 1989–90.
§ Mrs. Gillian ShephardI refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him today.
§ Mr. MeacherTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 64, what information on the percentage of real terms increase in spending on benefits attributable to an increase in the number of beneficiaries is available to him without incurring disproportionate cost.
§ Mrs. Gillian Shephard[holding answer 5 March 1990]: Increases in the numbers of beneficiaries for particular benefits may have a simple demographic origin, but when more money is spent as a result of a policy change or through a longer effect such as the growth of additional pensions or increasing entitlements to income-related benefits, the extra costs often cannot be attributed simply and straightforwardly to changes in numbers of benefit units. Prior to 1989–90 for instance, real terms increases in expenditure on retirement pension, other than additional pension, will have been primarily attributable to the demographic trend of an aging population whereas for a period from October 1989 changes will have been significantly affected by the abolition of the pensioners earnings rule. Similarly, the introduction of family credit has been associated with a 50 per cent. increase in the number of recipients compared with family income supplement, but it is not easy to categorise the 100 per cent. increase in expenditure that occurred. Full analyses along these lines for individual benefits would involve many arbitrary judgments, and no such analyses are available.