Skip to main content


Volume 21: debated on Monday 5 April 1982

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

asked the Lord Privy Seal which system of proportional representation is proposed for the Namibia Constituent Assembly under the revised proposals supported by Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what are the revised arrangements proposed by the Contact Group for elections in Namibia involving a dual system of voting.

Details of the proposals are confidential between the parties. On 1 April the Five put forward a modification of the way in which our proposals could be

Estimates of take-up of supplementary benefit for 1979
Total likely to be entitled (000's)Proportion receiving benefit per cent.Number eligible but not receiving benefit (000's)£ million per annum Estimated Benefit unclaimedAverage weekly amount unclaimed £
(i) Pensioners2,5906590014503·10
(ii) Non-pensioners* —total1,4207832021012·70
(iii) Sick and Disabled300631109015·40
(iv) Unemployed700811307010·50
(v) One-parent families not included in (iii) and (iv)37085603010·20
Total for all groups4,010701,2103555·60
Original and revised estimates of take-up for 1977:
(O = Original estimate, R = Revised estimate)
Total likely to be entitled (000's)Proportion receiving benefitNumbers(000's) eligible but not receiving benefitEstimated benefit (£ million per annum) unclaimedAverage Weekly amount unclaimed
O per cent.R† per cent.OR†OR†O £R† £
(i) Pensioners2,320737261065010010003·102·90
(ii) Non-Pensioners*—total1,680767942035024516511·009·10
(iii) Sick and Disabled2908773308015408·009·80
(iv) Unemployed9508179170200909010·108·70
(v) One-parent families not included in (iii) and (iv)38089874050202510·509·30
Total—all groups4,00074751,0301,0003402656·305·10
* This total is slightly greater than the sum of lines (iii), (iv) and (v), since they include a small residual group of miscellaneous cases.
† The original 1977 estimates included provision for an unanalysed residual group whose take-up rate was estimated to be 19 per cent. The Supplementary Benefits Commission expressed doubts about this group, and in its 1978 annual report indicated that the 1979 FES analysis ought to provide more information.
The work has suggested that two-thirds of the group should be excluded because there were no grounds on which to base an assumption that they might have made a successful claim for benefit; and that the remaining third should be re-classified to the sick and disabled group, though all had jobs to return to, and, at interview, 66 per cent had been absent from work for two weeks or less. Thus the main difference between the original and

implemented, which we hope will meet the main reservations that have been expressed, so that phase one of the negotiations can be completed without further delay.