| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Benefit Disregards
8. Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the disregards involving housing benefit and council tax for people who are in receipt of occupational pensions; and if he will make a statement. [14358]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): We have no plans to change the treatment of occupational pensions in claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit.
Mr. O'Brien: The Minister will be aware of my constituent, Mr. Rogers, who receives 81p a week mine workers pension. Government regulations have meant that he has had a 57p cut in housing benefit and a cut in council tax benefit of 16p, which has left him with 8p a week. He has now been notified by Yorkshire Water that the service charges for water and sewerage will increase at twice the rate of inflation. That leaves my constituent owing money to the Government because of their activities. When will the Government stop driving pensioners, especially people on occupational pensions, deeper and deeper into the poverty trap?
Mr. Evans: I am not aware, at this moment, of the facts--[Interruption.] Well, I have not got a letter. I shall be happy to look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman specifically raises, and will write to him.
The hon. Gentleman's general question highlights the difficulties of income-related benefits. The Labour party's apparent proposals for a guaranteed minimum pension would simply extend means testing, with the difficulties that the hon. Member mentioned.
Mr. Patrick Thompson:
When my hon. Friend the Minister considers disregards for housing benefit and council tax rebates, will he bear in mind the representations that I have received from war pensioners and war widows in Norwich? Is my hon. Friend aware that Labour-controlled, mean-minded Norwich city council is refusing to apply disregards to those war pensioners, in spite of the example set by neighbouring councils and the majority of other councils?
Mr. Evans:
I am so aware and, no doubt, my hon. Friend's constituents will take due note.
Child Support Agency
9. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to respond to the second report of the Social Security Committee on the performance and operation of the Child Support Agency (HC 50 of Session 1995-96). [14359]
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: We are giving very careful consideration to the recommendations in that thoughtful and thorough report and plan to respond to the Committee by the end of March.
Mrs. Prentice: I thank the Minister. However, does he share the concern of the Public Accounts Select Committee that the CSA has set its target at 75 per cent. and that, in other words, it expects to get only three out of four cases right? Does he believe that that is an acceptable level of assessment and does he agree that the public will not have trust and confidence in the CSA until it sets its targets at a higher rate?
Mr. Mitchell: Many measures have been taken to try to improve the agency's accuracy, which was woefully low. There has been a steep increase this year. The Secretary of State set a demanding target of 75 per cent. and that target has been exceeded for the past two months. We shall set exacting targets for next year as well.
It is important to remember that accuracy standards for the Child Support Agency mean accuracy to within 1p. Given that, I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming the steep increase in accuracy that has taken place in the past year. We intend to ensure that that continues in the coming year.
Mr. Tredinnick:
When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the report, will he consider the cases of those who have been wrongly assessed by the Child Support Agency? Does he agree with me that the absent parent should be repaid in full immediately when such cases come to light?
Mr. Mitchell:
We shall respond carefully to the Select Committee's report, and certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. The House will note, however, that the Committee welcomes the progress made by the agency. It considers that the agency has shown that it can implement significant changes quickly and efficiently. It confirms the view that the agency is here to stay. Indeed, it refers to the growing acceptance that the agency will be a permanent feature of British life. There has been a steady improvement in the agency's performance over the past year. There needs to be, and we intend to ensure that that improvement continues over the next year.
Mr. Sutcliffe:
Is it not true that the Child Support Agency has lost public confidence and that it is not meeting requirements? Does the Minister agree that the best thing would be to scrap the agency and start all over again?
Mr. Mitchell:
That is not the policy of either of the two main parties in the House. The hon. Gentleman may have noted that on page 92 of the Select Committee's report it published the evidence of one of the leaders of the campaign against the agency. That gentleman earns
Sick and Disabled People
10. Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total spending on long-term sick and disabled people and their carers; and what were the equivalent figures for 1978-79 and 1985-86. [14360]
Mr. Burt: Estimated expenditure on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled and their carers for 1995-96 is over £20 billion. The equivalent real terms figure for 1985-86 is £8 billion; and for 1978-79, £5 billion.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents and those of other hon. Friends throughout the country will be concerned about the way in which spending in this area has burgeoned at a time when so many people in society are supposed to be getting better in terms of their health? Does he agree with me, and will he take up the point, that we shall drive hard to ensure that money in this area is spent solely on those who genuinely need it?
Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a sound point about the changes that had to be made to incapacity benefit. We were trying to ensure that a rapid rise in the growth of expenditure was brought under some control to ensure also that benefit went to those who really needed it.
The Government seek to encourage independence in terms of benefit policy for other long-term sick and disabled people. We want to establish a simpler system with fewer overlaps which will be delivered by modern means, and one that will reduce the scope for fraud and abuse. The Government are well on their way to producing such a system.
Mr. Wigley:
Will the Minister please avoid the pressure coming from the right wing of the Conservative party further to cut expenditure on disabled and long-term sick people? Will he consider especially the position of those people who are receiving care in the community help through local authorities, in circumstances where the local authorities are having severely to cut expenditure because of the grant settlements of the coming year? Will the Minister ensure that no one who needs that help will be either unable to pay for it where excessive charges are being made, or will lose out because local authorities cannot provide the necessary services?
Mr. Burt:
I recognise the hon. Gentleman's genuine concern. To suggest to the Government, however, that they have been in any way mean towards the long-term sick and disabled is just untrue. We are keen to ensure that benefits go to those who need them, and that they are used appropriately. As I said in my main answer, total spending on the long-term sick and disabled shows a 280 per cent. increase in real terms. That is equivalent to £350 per person in the United Kingdom.
It is important that our record on sick and disabled people is recognised. We introduced the disability living allowance, which brought about 500,000 people into
benefit for the first time. Our record of care and concern for those who really need it is outstanding, and strongly supported by the Government. Community care, an innovation introduced by a Conservative Government, is the responsibility of the Department of Health. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are made known to my colleagues in that Department. Our record on disabled people, especially with the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was the most important step in anti-discrimination legislation affecting disabled people that this country has ever seen, is second to none.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
Does my hon. Friend accept that carers are the unsung heroes of community care, and that not only do they save the public--the taxpayer-- a great deal of money but in many cases they sacrifice their own career and private life to look after somebody who is ill, whether that person is disabled, mentally ill or mentally handicapped, and that carers deserve more consideration from society, whether by way of assistance or fiscal incentive? Will my hon. Friend see what he can do to encourage and help this very deserving section of our community?
Mr. Burt:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The entire country owes a debt of gratitude to all those who care for and look after others. It is a debt that the Government have recognised uniquely. In the middle of 1986, about 30,000 people were in receipt of invalid care allowance. Owing to changes made by the Government, 318,000 people are now in receipt of that allowance. In 1979, the Labour Government spent £4 million on invalid care allowance, whereas, this year, this Conservative Government will spend £609 million. That shows how much Conservatives value carers, and that is what we have done for a most deserving and important group of people.
Mr. Bradley:
Despite what the Minister has said, there have been real cuts in benefits for disabled people--estimated to be at least £90 million this year and £250 million in 1998-99. One cut that is causing particular concern is the withdrawal in July of the mobility component from disability living allowance for adults and children in hospital. Many organisations, such as Mencap, have made representations to hon. Members, because they know what an enormous difference the benefit makes to people in that situation. Without it, disabled people are deprived of their mobility. Does the Minister not recognise that that cut is particularly pernicious? Will he think again and protect the 16,000 people who live in NHS hospitals or in residential homes, so that their quality of life does not suffer?
Mr. Burt:
The situation is not quite as clear cut as the hon. Gentleman makes out. The benefit is designed to assist independent mobility. Those for whom the restriction is intended are in long-term care, where independent mobility is difficult and where in many cases the NHS is designed to pick up other care needs. We also have evidence that the benefit was used for a variety of other purposes beyond that of independent mobility. Some six times as many people today receive support for their care and mobility needs than in 1979. It is a difficult area. It is out to the Social Security Advisory Committee for
Mr. Tracey:
My hon. Friend amply made the case that the Government are providing far more than was provided in 1979. Does he agree, however, that there is still too much duplication between the community health trusts and social services in local authorities? Will the Government do something to begin to bridge the gap and, indeed, to save resources in that sphere?
Mr. Burt:
As I said in an earlier answer, the Government intend to ensure that there are as few overlaps as possible. My hon. Friend has put his finger on an aspect that could be examined, and I shall draw it to the attention of my colleagues in the Department of Health. We are determined to ensure that the system is fair and simple, and that benefit goes to those who need it most. Our record in that regard is exceptionally good.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |