The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
No allowance shall be paid under this Act unless the recipient would, with respect to his contribution record, be entitled to unemployment benefit and sickness benefit.—[Mr. Madel]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Madel
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
We have tabled this new clause as a means of probing the relationship between national insurance benefit and job release entitlement. I note that the weekly rate for job release is £23. If a married couple, both working, decided to take advantage of the job release scheme they would have a total income of £46 per week, compared with the supplementary benefit weekly rate for a married couple of only £20·65. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), referring to rent or rates rebates, asked the Minister:In reply, the Minister said:"May I take it that that would not affect such matters as rent or rates rebates?"
I do not know what the ruling is on this matter. If the Minister has any information, or if there has been consultation between the Department and the Supplementary Benefits Commission following the launching of the scheme, we would be interested to know what the position is. I take it from what has been said about the way in which the figures were arrived at for job release that that is subject to general adjustment, annual uprating and alterations that take place in supplementary and unemployment benefits. The main reason behind this general probing clause is that we envisage a possibility, which I am about to describe, and we would like the Government's views. It would be possible, would it not, for somebody from overseas—a woman of 58½or a man of 63½—to come to this country, get a job and have that job end within six months? Under the unemployment rules, such a man or woman would not be able to claim unemployment benefit, not having paid an adequate amount by way of contributions. The question is: would that man or woman be able to take advantage of the job release scheme by virtue of having worked for that length of time? That is not an impossibility. There are occasions when relatives who are capable of working come here and join the breadwinner. One wonders whether, given that situation, such a person would be entitled to claim under the scheme. I take it that he or she would not, but it would be interesting to have the Government's views. If people come here from overseas and are without means, they come into the supplementary benefits net. We think it right to ask whether, in the circumstances that I have outlined, they would come under the job release scheme. Secondly, regarding the relationship between national insurance benefits and such benefits as will be payable under the job release scheme, I should like to refer to the question of a married woman who relies on her husband's contributions to national insurance. Many such women do not register as unemployed, as they are not eligible for unemployment benefit and have no national insurance contributions to keep up. I accept that for a woman of 59 the chances of finding a job are probably limited. However, under the job release scheme the question arises whether it would be possible for such a woman to register as unemployed for a short time and to collect the £23. If so, would it be possible for a married woman who has never worked to do the same? We should like some information on that matter. The clause has been moved in a spirit of general probing to ascertain the Government's views on the examples which I have given, which are relevant, because they could certainly occur."That will have to be worked out with the Supplementary Benefits Commission."—[Official Report, 14th February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 43.]
Mr. Golding
I must advise the Committee not to accept the clause, because I understand that it is legally defective. The term "contribution record" is ambiguous. However, I accept the spirit in which the questions have been posed.
On the question of rates rebates, on Second Reading I was wrong in one respect. They depend not only on the Supplementary Benefits Commission but on local authorities. I understand that although there will not be the same offset in some cases as there is for the first portion of the allowance, some allowance will be made. There is as yet no question of an annual uprating, because we are dealing with a six months' scheme. If we decide to continue the scheme we shall have to look at the rules and consider whether we need to introduce an annual uprating. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) referred to people coming here from abroad. Under the scheme, people must have been employed, registered as unemployed, or certified sick on 3rd August. Therefore, on that date people must be in one of those categories before being eligible for benefit. We shall be careful to ensure that the job release scheme, if extended, is not exploited for other purposes. The Government think it right that married women should receive the benefit if they qualify. If a married woman gives up her job it is proper for the £23 allowance to be paid to her just as it is to a man. In a case where a husband and wife are working, the family income is obviously geared to that fact. We would not be able to persuade a married women to give up work at the age of 59 to create a vacancy for someone else unless she were to benefit under this scheme. Finally, I should like to refer again to the Belgian scheme. We shall constantly watch the operation of that scheme. We shall look for inspiration abroad as well as listening to the points made here to see whether our scheme can be improved. I shall consider the specific questions posed by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South and examine them carefully.
Mr. Madel
In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.