| Home Page |
Column 1
T H EP A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
[WHICH OPENED 27 APRIL 1992]
FORTY-FIRST YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES VOLUME 215
NINTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1992-93
House of Commons
Monday 30 November 1992
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
SOCIAL SECURITY
Benefits Uprating
1. Mr. Andrew Mitchell : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the recent uprating in benefits.
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley) : The uprating of benefits in line with the annual increase in prices has been widely and warmly welcomed.
Mr. Mitchell : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following a particularly tough public expenditure round in which public sector pay has been significantly constrained, his decision to uprate the pension in full has been greatly welcomed? Does he feel that that decision provides an eloquent contrast to that taken by the Labour party, on two separate occasions, to slash the annual Christmas bonus to pensioners? Which party is really the friend of the pensioner?
Mr. Lilley : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given to the uprating statement. The day of the statement revealed graphically the answer to his question, because we saw the gloom on the faces of Labour Members as they welcomed the good news of the uprating
Column 2
and that contrasted with the warm welcome that the rest of the country gave it. The fact is that we try to help the poor and needy, whereas the Labour party tries to exploit them.Mr. Norman Hogg : Can the Secretary of State tell us who exactly "warmly welcomed" the uprating, because I have not encountered anyone engaged in that warm welcome? Is not it the case that the Secretary of State just deludes himself and that what he did was minimalist--it was the least he could do and what he had to do under the statute--and that this afternoon he is engaged in empty cant?
Mr. Lilley : I think that the hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he moves in narrow and exclusively socialist circles. If he ventured forth, even so far as to read the columns of The Guardian, not a paper normally noted for its warmth of welcome towards me, he would know that it said that the decisions I had taken on that day deserved praise.
Mr. Kirkwood : Can the Secretary of State tell the House what chance he has had to study the recent Joseph Rowntree Trust report, which clearly showed that the level of benefits made available to recipients simply left them short, in some cases by between £30 and £40, of what they needed to live a decent, ordinary life?
Mr. Lilley : I always study documents from that quarter closely. I could not help noticing, however, that the trust thought that the amount of money required to maintain a modest standard of living was about the same as the point at which those on the Opposition Front Bench think that punitive taxation on the rich should start. Obviously that affected my understanding of the whole report.
Delayed Payments
2. Mrs. Helen Jackson : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward regulations to ensure that interest accrues on social security payments due to claimants that are delayed in the Benefits Agency.
Column 3
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe) : The Secretary of State has no power under existing legislation to bring forward such regulations.
Mrs. Jackson : As the customers charter states that all citizens have the right to expect that their benefits will be processed efficiently, accurately and promptly, does the Minister think it right that my constituents should receive just sweet, apologetic phrases from Mr. Bichard of the Benefits Agency when benefit payments of more than £2,000 are outstanding? Is it right that they should receive no compensation? February of next year is coming up very quickly, which means that it will be a year since the new benefits came into force, but many people will still be left waiting after that year for payment. Does the Minister agree that claimants should be entitled, automatically, to receive compensation or interest accruing after the 30-day period that the Secretary of State set in that customers charter?
Miss Widdecombe : The hon. Lady completely ignores the considerable measures that have been taken to speed up the payment of disability living allowance. I do not share her pessimistic view of the numbers that may be left at the end of the year. However, it is crucial not to presuppose that it is an ordinary standard, and therefore make arrangements for compensation, but to make all possible efforts to ensure that the system works. That is why we have drafted 800 additional staff and made 400 extra computer terminals available, which is a far better solution. I shall take no lectures from the Opposition, whose idea of speeding up claims was to phase in mobility allowance over four years.
Mr. Willetts : How long, on average, does it take from first applying for income support until the receipt of an income support payment, and how does that compare with past performances?
Miss Widdecombe : Against a current national target of five days, income support is often paid within 2.5 days and the overwhelming majority of local offices are well within target.
Mr. Alfred Morris : How many of the delayed payments were for people with life-threatening conditions, like my constituent, Mr. Ken Vince, for whom payment was made more than eight months after his claim and two months after he died? Is the Minister aware that bereaved families are not consoled by posthumously word-processed sympathy and that my late constituent's case came to me 13 weeks after all the distress and expense of phoning the Benefits Agency, sometimes 20 times a day, without response?
Miss Widdecombe : I entirely echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State four weeks ago in the House in saying that we deeply regret the problems that arose. They happened because of the policy's huge success and the large number of claims that it generated. We have now taken all possible measures to ensure that that does not recur. I am very sympathetic to the distress suffered by the right hon. Gentleman's constituent and his family.
Column 4
Child Support Agency
3. Lady Olga Maitland : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what long-term savings he expects to make as a result of the operation of the Child Support Agency.
7. Mr. Milligan : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what long-term savings he expects to make as a result of the operation of the Child Support Agency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt) : We expect that, in the long term, absent parents will contribute some £600 million to the maintenance of their children, a cost currently borne by taxpayers.
Lady Olga Maitland : I warmly welcome the establishment of the Child Support Agency. It is a relief to the average taxpayer--every father and mother in this country--who takes strong exception to paying to support other people's children. What estimate, for the average family, does the Child Support Agency make in asking absentee fathers to support their children?
Mr. Burt : Current information is that average maintenance awards for families are between £25 and £30 a week. We hope that that will rise to £45 a week. Maintenance is a helpful source of income, not just for the present but for the future. I recognise that many single mothers will want to go out to work, and the portable income that maintenance will provide should assist that.
Mr. Milligan : Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the effects of the Child Support Agency is not only to achieve the benefits that he mentioned but to target help effectively on lower-income families? Will he give the House an assessment of how much such families have benefited since the social security reforms of 1988?
Mr. Burt : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Since 1988, we estimate that some £750 million extra has been provided to low-income families by way of the changes. In 1979, some £1.5 billion was spent at current prices on benefits for lone parents. That figure is now £4.3 billion.
Mr. Wicks : Notwithstanding the fact that two Conservative Members have had the creativity to ask the same question about savings, does the Minister agree that the purpose of the Child Support Act 1991 should be to support children, not to produce Exchequer savings? Does he agree that more than seven out of 10 families with children in that position will receive no extra money as a result of the child support legislation? Is not it appropriate that the Minister should change the policy so that a pound for a pound is not withdrawn, for child support, from income support and that we have a reform so that children and not just the Treasury are supported by that measure?
Mr. Burt : As so often with the Opposition, the hon. Gentleman misses the point completely. There is no saving to the Treasury. The saving is to the many millions of mothers and fathers who currently pay through their tax for other people's children. The point about the Child Support Agency is that the money goes to support the children. In future, many mothers will want to go out to work and the portable maintenance income will assist them to do that. I do not see any reason to change the current policy on income support.
Column 5
Mr. Dewar : We shall carefully monitor the work of the Child Support Agency. Does the Minister accept that real fears have to be addressed in cases where there has been a record of violence or no continuing relationship between, probably, the father and the mother and child? The Minister almost managed to give the impression that the cash that would come in from the work of the Child Support Agency would be ring fenced specifically for child benefit or some other relevant benefit. That is not true. Is he prepared to look again at some form of disregard for those on income support so that a parent paying maintenance has the satisfaction of knowing that the family will benefit and so that the parent, very often the mother who has custody of the child, has a real and positive incentive to co-operate?
Mr. Burt : The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there are maintenance disregards for in-work benefits such as family credit and housing benefit. Maintenance disregard will assist. As I explained to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), there is no maintenance disregard for income support, which is not an in-work benefit. The availability of maintenance to the mother will help not just at present but in the future because that mother will not stay on income support for ever. For her, it is the acquisition of maintenace that is most important.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition would monitor the work of the Child Support Agency. We shall also do that, to ensure that what we have said about special care and consideration for women who are worried about violence is well met. We shall do our best to reassure the voluntary agencies and those who advise them and who may be worried about approaching the Child Support Agency. We would not want such fears to put people off approaching the agency. There is buffer protection for them and assistance for those who are worried. We hope that our reassuring work currently being carried on around the country through presentations will ease many of the fears which, I appreciate, are quite justifiably held. Equally justifiably, we say that we can reassure people.
Mr. Dickens : Does my hon. Friend recall irresponsible demands a short time ago to withdraw the Child Support Act 1991? Will he join me in inviting Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to condemn the resolution passed at the last Labour party conference that that legislation should be withdrawn? Now the Opposition seem to want to monitor it carefully. What a change!
Mr. Burt : As always, my hon. Friend is the champion of those who resist irresponsible demands. He is right to condemn the last Labour party conference on its callous attitude towards mothers who require proper maintenance from fathers. I invite the House to support my hon. Friend's attitude in this matter rather than the attitude adopted at the Labour party conference.
Blind People
4. Mr. Soley : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of the extension of the severe disability premium to those living with a blind person, as announced in his benefit uprating statement ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Lilley : We estimate that this improvement will cost £1 million a year.
Column 6
Mr. Soley : Does the Secretary of State accept that in principle the premium ought to be available to everyone who qualifies medically? Will he undertake to deliver that principle over time? If he will not do that, will he at least adopt the shorter version, by accepting the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee that the premium should be extended to those who are over the age of 75 and living with someone?
Mr. Lilley : I fully understand and sympathise with the feelings of those who recently lobbied the House. I met people from my constituency and elsewhere who would like to see the severe disability premium applied universally. In a tight financial settlement we obviously thought it right to take this small step which helps those who live with blind people. That has been warmly welcomed by the organisations for the blind who came to speak to me. To go as far as the hon. Gentleman wishes could cost several hundreds of millions of pounds.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that help is channelled towards those with a disability through the disability living allowance and the attendance allowance, which are disregarded in calculating the other disability and pensioner premiums in income support. Therefore, we try to channel support to people who are not living alone as well as to those who, through this premium, get support because they are living alone.
Mr. Duncan : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that since 1979 Government spending on the long-term sick and disabled has gone up by 173 per cent. in real terms? Is not that an impressive record, of which the Government should be proud?
Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have given priority to help for the sick and disabled, and the House recognises and welcomes that. The amount of help has grown far faster than that for other benefits, and it way outstrips that provided under the last Labour Government.
Mr. Bradley : May I press the Secretary of State about the care of the over-75s? Does he realise that the Social Security Advisory Committee recognises that where the carer is over 75, it is unreasonable to expect him to deliver that care, and that it has to be bought in, but that no extra financial support is given in those circumstances? The committee said that the cost of extending the severe disability premium to the over-75s was only £17 million and it had to compare that with the likelihood that the severely disabled person would have to go into residential care, at a much greater cost through income support than extending the severe disability premium. Will the Minister look at the real needs of families where the carer is over 75 and consider extending the severe disability premium, to ensure that those people do not suffer even greater hardships?
Mr. Lilley : I look closely at the recommendations from my committee. The proposal that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) mentioned, for assistance for those living with blind people, came from that committee and we were able to adopt it. There is some uncertainty about the costings of the other proposal that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but when one is talking of tens of millions of pounds, that is a significant sum.
Mr. Bradley : I talked of £17 million.
Column 7
Mr. Lilley : That is still tens of millions of pounds. A significant cost is involved, and we should have to consider whether it would always be well targeted. Some over-75s are very fit--I am happy to say that my mother is--and others are not. We have tried to focus assistance more accurately, while continuing to give help to those living with other people through the method that I have suggested, which channels considerable sums to help them.
Disability Living Allowance
5. Mr. John Evans : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what review he has made of the adequacy of the administration of claims for disability living allowance ; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : I am, as the hon. Member will know, fully aware of, and concerned about, the problems that have complicated the introduction of DLA in its early stages and I continue to take a close personal interest in its administration and delivery.
I have had extensive meetings with the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, who is responsible for the administration of DLA, and have discussed the substantial progress that has been made through the programme of recovery, as well as any remaining problems.
I also recognise the immense dedication and effort that staff of the Benefits Agency and, in particular, those who deal with claims to the benefit, have contributed to achieving this progress.
Mr. Evans : Will the Minister acknowledge that there are thousands of unanswered claimants' application forms lying in the DLA office, and that it is virtually impossible for a desperate claimant to make any sort of telephone contact with the office? Is he aware that Mrs. Mullen of Clinkham Wood, St. Helens, in my constituency, rang the DLA office on 17 November in an attempt to find out what had happened to the application that she had made in July? At 2.30 she was told to wait because she was in a queue. At 3 pm, her phone went dead and she immediately rang back. Again, she was told to wait because she was in a queue. At 4.50, her phone went dead again. Is not this a disgraceful way to treat impoverished people? Is not the answer that the agency was deliberately underfunded when it was set up?
Mr. Scott : Clearly, it is impossible for me to respond on the Floor of the House to individual cases of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If he would like to write to me with details, I will certainly follow it up.
I shall be visiting the disability benefits centre at Fylde on Friday to check on present progress. I am told that the improvements that have been made to our central inquiry line, to the benefits inquiry line and to the dedicated line for Members of Parliament have produced excellent results in solving the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Jacques Arnold : Bearing in mind the difficulties with inquiries, can the Minister confirm that the awards will be backdated where necessary and, therefore, that applicants will not continue to lose out?
Mr. Scott : I can certainly given my hon. Friend that assurance. What is more, I can say that general rules on benefits provide that compensation is available when a
Column 8
benefit has not been paid for 12 months since the date of claim or when some delay has led to an interruption of the benefit for three months. Some 76 such claims have already been met.Mrs. Golding : Can the Minister tell us why a constituent of mine received a letter about disability living allowance from the Benefits Agency on 1 November saying that if she wants her benefit to continue after 1 May next year--that is six months later--she should claim straight away, and that if she delays, the Benefits Agency may not have time to deal with the claim before it ends on 1 May? Why does the agency need six months to be certain of renewing a claim?
Mr. Scott : The present target for the Benefits Agency is to clear 60 per cent. of claims in 30 days. Half the disability benefit centres are meeting that target. [Interruption.] If I may say, the proper way for the hon. Lady to deal with the matter is for her to write to me, and I shall take it up with the chief executive.
Maxwell Pension Funds
6. Mr. Lidington : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what success his Department has had in tracing money owed to the Maxwell pension funds.
Miss Widdecombe : My Department's Maxwell pensions unit is actively assisting the trustees, liquidators and administrators of the Maxwell schemes who have responsibility for tracing and recovering the missing assets.
Mr. Lidington : Does my hon. Friend accept that many hundreds of my constituents in Aylesbury still live daily with uncertainty and fear for the future because of the robbery of their life savings by Mr. Maxwell? What assurance can she give those constituents today about the future payment of their pensions? When can we finally expect to see the distribution of the assets in the common investment fund which seem to have been held up in legal bureaucracy for far too long?
Miss Widdecombe : My hon. Friend has correctly identified the single biggest measure that could be taken to restore peace of mind to the Maxwell pensioners--the distribution of the £123 million which exists, unlike the money that has yet to be recovered, but has not yet been allocated. The trustees of those funds have now had almost a year of discussions on the allocation of the money. It is our earnest hope that they will be able to make rapid progress towards a solution.
Mr. Skinner : Will the Minister give an assurance that other firms such as British Coal which want to do a Maxwell--British Coal has pinched £735 million from the miners' pension fund--will not be allowed to do so in the future? In order to ensure that we get the money back for the Maxwell pensioners, perhaps the Minister will drop a line to Lord Walker who received £440,000 and a Mercedes car out of Maxwell just before he finished. The £440,000 came out of the pockets of the Maxwell pensioners, and Lord Walker should pay it back to those people.
Miss Widdecombe : I think that there are rather a lot of people in the other place to whom one could drop a line. Some of them sit on the same side as the hon. Gentleman. He has no good evidence that other firms are trying to do
Column 9
what he describes as a Maxwell. Nevertheless, he will be aware of the existence of the Goode committee which I hope will address such outstanding concerns and on which we will take appropriate action.Mr. Madel : I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said. There is an equally serious problem in my constituency with Maxwell pensioners. Former Maxwell employees who were entitled to a deferred pension are extremely worried about whether they will get their pensions. Can the Minister say anything more today to reassure them?
Miss Widdecombe : Yes. Through the emergency measures that the Government have taken to secure funding for the Maxwell pensioners, deferred pensioners whose pensions are now falling due will receive their pension in the same way as other pensioners. For those deferred pensioners whose pensions are due not now, but in the longer term, the solution lies, initially, with the allocation of moneys from the common investment fund.
Disability Allowances
8. Mr. Elletson : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to consult disabled people and their representatives on the design and promotion of the new disability living allowance and disability working allowance.
Mr. Scott : The design and promotion of DLA and DWA were developed in close consultation with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. Following the introduction of those new benefits, we continue to consult widely both formally and informally.
Mr. Elletson : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the increased resources that his Department has allotted to the handling of the disability living allowance, there has been a substantial improvement in the speed at which claims are processed? Will he confirm that the Department remains committed to increasing the speed at which claims are handled?
Mr. Scott : I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that that is so. The backlog of claims--in excess of what we would normally expect for in- hand claims--has now been removed. We are also ensuring that claim forms and letters associated with benefits are kept in a constant state of review and improved as necessary.
Mr. Rooney : From where have the 800 additional staff been brought, and what impact has that movement had on claimants in other sectors of the system?
Mr. Scott : Because of the relatively low take-up of the disability working allowance in its early days, we were able to move a number of people who were previously dealing with that benefit, and people from other parts of the Benefits Agency, on to clearing the backlog of DLA. A substantial amount of the work has also been achieved by the introduction of considerable amounts of overtime during the week and at weekends.
Column 10
Low-Income Families
9. Mr. Spring : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the number of low-income families facing marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent. (a) in 1978-79 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available.
Mr. Lilley : In 1985, the earliest year for which information is available, 70,000 families had marginal deduction rates of more than 100 per cent.
As a result of the reforms of social security, this year almost no families have marginal deduction rates of 100 per cent. or more.
Mr. Spring : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department has organised successful campaigns since 1989 to increase public awareness about the take-up of family credit? Does he agree that those campaigns were most useful in spreading awareness and increasing the take-up of that vital benefit?
Mr. Lilley : I can, indeed, confirm my hon. Friend's point. Family credit is a unique benefit, with little or no counterpart elsewhere in Europe. It serves a valuable function in helping people back into work, when they have only a relatively low earning ability initially. We want the benefit to be widely known and recognised--it is in the interests of families, as well as taxpayers, for people to shift from full-time reliance on income support into work, with family credit.
Mr. Raynsford : Does the Secretary of State recognise that, for households in low-paid work, receiving assistance with housing costs and community charge costs, the marginal rate of withdrawal of benefit has risen from 62p in the pound in 1979 to a current rate of 87p in the pound? How can the Secretary of State justify the deep poverty trap into which he has plunged hundreds of thousands of households. Will he say how many have been affected by that totally unjust poverty trap?
Mr. Lilley : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we wish, as he does, to see any disincentive effects of the social security system diminish. That was the prime objective of my right hon. Friend's reforms in 1985-86. It was one reason why we moved from assessing income on a gross basis to a net -of-tax basis. The tax changes introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, particularly the 20 per cent. band for the lowest paid-- previously, the band was up to 33 per cent.--has resulted in a reduced disincentive effect on their earnings combined with benefit. All those factors have reduced the number of people facing the highest rates of effective tax when on low incomes. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, not wish us to go back to a system under which many people suffered withdrawal rates of more than 100 per cent.
Mr. Streeter : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there have been more than 2.5 million successful claims for family credit since it was introduced in 1988? Is that not powerful evidence that that important benefit, which supports people in work, is supporting many thousands of low -paid workers in this country?
Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend's facts are entirely correct. The recent figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies suggests that the take-up rate has been improving, and
Column 11
that those who do not take up the benefit are predominantly those who have the lowest entitlement to the money and, therefore, lose least by not taking it up.Invalidity Benefit
10. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposed new medical control procedures for invalidity benefit from April 1993.
Mr. Scott : The changes announced by my right hon. Friend on 12 November will streamline controls that already apply to all claims for incapacity benefits. Better use of our medical resources will help to ensure that invalidity benefit is properly paid.
Mr. Jones : Is not streamlining another way of saving money for the Treasury? What qualifications does the Minister have to entitle him to overrule doctors who have responsibility for judging the invalidity of claimants?
Mr. Scott : At present, the majority of claimants are dealt with on the basis of judgments made by general practitioners. I see no reason why that should not continue once we have streamlined the proceedings. About 50,000 claimants a year fail to appear for subsequent medical examinations by our medical services. Those people will be given more notice of the dates of their examinations. They will be expected to give reasons if they are not to attend. I believe that the improved reports by the examining doctors will reduce the number of people who have to attend for a second examination, as about 50,000 now have to do.
Pensioners Charter
11. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will now meet pension associations to discuss the implementation of a pensioners charter.
| Next Section
| Home Page |