House of Commons
Tuesday 20 February 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
SOCIAL SECURITY
Budget Growth
1. Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the projected rate of growth of the social security budget over the next three years; and what will be the proportion of gross domestic product spent on social security. [14350]
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Social security spending is expected to increase by a little more than 1 per cent. a year in real terms. That is less than half the rate at which gross domestic product is expected to grow, so there is every prospect of social security taking a declining share of GDP in future.
Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have managed to achieve that in the face of considerable pressures because we have taken sensible and practical steps to contain both expenditure and overheads, unlike Labour Ministers who talk about thinking the unthinkable and would open up again the benefit system to asylum appellants who have been refused asylum?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right that the success in containing the prospective growth in social security is the result of the reforms that we have introduced over the past three years, almost every one of which has been opposed by the Opposition, including the latest sensible changes to stop abuse of the welfare system by bogus asylum claimants. The Opposition have opposed every change that we have made. When they talk about thinking the unthinkable, they are thinking about spending yet more public money. Every proposal that they put forward is an increased expenditure plan.
Ms Hodge: Does the Secretary of State agree that an important part of the social security budget is the cold weather payments system? Will he explain how it can possibly be fair to my constituents in Barking that the eligibility for cold weather payments of those who live on one side of Lodge avenue is measured against the temperature at Heathrow, but the eligibility of those who live on the other side is measured against the temperature at Stansted? Is it fair that one group of tenants should have received cold weather payments four times this year while tenants on the other side of the road have had them only once?
Mr. Lilley: There are always difficulties wherever borderlines are drawn. That is true of cold weather payments and of the education system. Many Labour spokesmen find it difficult when the good schools are on one side of the borderline and they live on the other.
Pensioner Households
2. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households had (a) a fridge, (b) a car, (c) a freezer, (d) a telephone and (e) a television in 1979; and how many have these items currently. [14351]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): Based on the data for 1992-93: 99 per cent. have a fridge compared with 88 per cent. in 1979; 50 per cent. have a car or van compared with 34 per cent. in 1979; 78 per cent. have a freezer compared with 32 per cent. in 1979; 93 per cent. have a telephone compared with 57 per cent. in 1979.
The current figures do not record televisions, but virtually all pensioner households have one.
Lady Olga Maitland:
I thank my hon. Friend for telling us the excellent news about pensioners' increased standards of living, which is largely the result of the success of occupational pensions. Does he agree that that success would be seriously eroded should pensions ever be invested by trade unions as proposed by the Labour party? Pensioners' nest eggs would be whittled away to nothing.
Mr. Heald:
My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a valid point. The fact is that when Labour talk about thinking the unthinkable, it means spending more money. Its stakeholder proposals mean higher premiums and lower returns on its second tier stakeholder pension scheme. The Labour party has always wanted to get its hands on private pensions. Harold Wilson and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) wanted to and now Labour's Front- Bench spokesmen want to.
Mr. Ashton:
Is it not a fact that those pensioners have fridges, cars and telephones because they bought them in 1979 when they were in full-time employment? Their fridges are now 16 years old and they cannot afford to replace them under this Government.
Mr. Heald:
The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening, because I said that pensioners did not have those goods in 1979 and now they do. He may recall that under the last Labour Government pensioners' incomes increased by 5 per cent. and that under this Government they have increased by almost that amount every year.
Mr. Anthony Coombs:
Returning to the realms of reality rather than the fantasy world in which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) lives, will my hon. Friend confirm that nowadays no fewer than eight out of 10 pensioners have incomes outside the state pension? One of the great achievements of the past 15 years is that £600 billion has been put aside in occupational pensions funds, which is the greatest expenditure in Europe. Does my hon. Friend agree that
Mr. Heald:
My hon. Friend is correct. The Government's policy is to maintain the value of the basic state pension, encourage private provision and target extra help at those most in need. It is no coincidence that we in this country have invested £600 billion in private pension schemes--which is more than the rest of the European Community combined.
Mr. Wicks:
Does the Minister accept that there is another nation in old age which is not revealed by the camouflage of his complacency: a nation of pensioners who are often poor? Does the Minister accept that many frail elderly people are sitting at home on this freezing cold day afraid to put on their fires because of the high heating costs? Why does the Department make so few forecasts that can trigger cold weather payments when in 1991 Ministers assured us that forecasts were being introduced so that we could reassure the old that they could keep their fires on? Is it not time that pensioners in Britain were no longer old and cold?
Mr. Heald:
The hon. Gentleman should check his facts because, since November, expenditure on cold weather payments has tripled to £60 million.
3. Mr. Alan Howarth:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that potential asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry are made aware of the rules affecting their entitlement to social security benefits. [14352]
Mr. Lilley:
The availability of social security benefits should not be a factor in the decision to apply for asylum.
Mr. Howarth:
Is it not incumbent on the Government to ensure that advice is provided to potential asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry that if they do not apply for asylum there and then they will not be eligible for benefits and, under the Government's new policy, will be at risk of absolute destitution? What advice are the Government providing to new arrivals before they reach immigration control? Will the Secretary of State comment on the immigration service's reported insistence that posters, which were provided voluntarily and which would have alerted people to that situation, must not be sited in either the arrival halls or in the buffer lounges at Heathrow?
Mr. Lilley:
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, when people present before the immigration authorities in this country, they are asked their reasons for coming here. If they say that they have come to take refuge and to claim asylum, they will be able to pursue that claim and they will be entitled to benefit while doing so. However, if they manage to convince the immigration authorities that they are coming to this country as students, business men or visitors and they go on to persuade them that they have the means to support themselves, that they have somewhere to stay and that they have a ticket to return
The hon. Gentleman--who is a friend of mine, if not in the technical sense--did not seek asylum in the Labour party in the hope of deriving any benefits. Genuine asylum seekers entering this country do not come here for our benefits: they come here for our freedoms.
Mrs. Roe:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should not encourage bogus asylum seekers who are not escaping persecution but are merely interested in benefits? Taking his point further, does he also agree that that sums up the position of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)?
Mr. Lilley:
My hon. Friend is right on all points. We cannot have a system whereby people who are asked a straightforward question but who give a series of misleading answers are subsequently able to get benefits because they change their story. That must be wrong, and cannot be acceptable to anyone.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |