| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Social Security Expenditure
7. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual average real growth in social security expenditure since 1966; and what was the figure in 1995-96. [28810]
Mr. Lilley: Between 1965-66 and 1995-96, social security expenditure grew in real terms by an average of 4.4 per cent. a year. Growth to 1998-99 is projected to be 1.3 per cent. a year--well within the expected growth of the economy.
Sir Michael Neubert: What does that reduction in average real growth represent in savings to the social security budget? What prospects are there of its continuing into the next century?
Mr. Lilley: The reforms that we have introduced, amounting to the biggest programme of welfare reform since the Beveridge policy was introduced in 1948, will save in the next Parliament some £5 billion a year and in due course more than £15 billion a year. All our reforms have been opposed by the Labour party.
Mr. Alan Howarth: As the Minister reflects on the growth of social security spending, will he also consider how small a part of that growth is accounted for by support for carers, who save the Exchequer an estimated £34 billion a year but who often impoverish themselves in giving that service? Will he review the system of benefits for them, including the threshold of earnings at which the invalid care allowance is withdrawn; and the hours of caring that have to be put in to qualify for invalid care allowance? Will he particularly review the ridiculous and hurtful rule that allows people the allowance if they support one person for 35 hours a week but not if they support two people--perhaps two elderly parents--for the same amount of time?
Will the Minister raise the invalid care allowance and extend the carers premium on income support to people who take up the responsibility after the age of 65?
Mr. Lilley:
The hon. Gentleman knows full well, because he studies these matters, that carers' benefits are the fastest growing area of expenditure in the welfare system. He was outspoken on welfare issues during his time in my party. I wonder whether he is going to say in public what we know he believes in private about the proposals of his new party to take away child benefit from those who stay on at school. Or is he now less willing to parade his conscience in public?
Mr. Evennett:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that his reforms are designed to target those in greatest need and to increase incentives to get people back into work?
Mr. Lilley:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A key to getting people back into work is the jobseeker's allowance, which we introduced in the teeth of Labour opposition and which we know Labour is determined to withdraw and abolish. We are amused to hear Labour Members say that this is part of another review--it is time they stopped reviewing and came up with concrete proposals and policies.
Mr. Chris Smith:
Does the Secretary of State accept that a major component of rising social security expenditure in recent years has been the growth in expenditure on housing benefit? Does he accept the conclusion of the Social Security Committee last week, that something like £2 billion a year is being defrauded from the housing benefit system, much of it by private sector landlords? Will the Secretary of State now take far more seriously the issue of landlord fraud on housing benefit? Will he accept the sensible recommendations of the Select Committee?
Mr. Lilley:
I have introduced a number of reforms to deal with exactly the problem of housing benefit fraud. The Labour party opposed them all. I introduced penalties and rewards for local authorities--particularly Labour-controlled authorities--that had done shamefully little to crack down on housing benefit fraud, which was
Sir James Molyneaux:
Does the Secretary of State detect a certain convergence of views between the two Front Benches on the need to contain escalating social security spending, which will otherwise race out of control in the next century?
Mr. Lilley:
I wish that there were a convergence between the two Front Benches on the issue of social security, but the Labour party has opposed every reform that I have introduced. Every Labour proposal involves increased spending. What Labour Members describe as "hard choices" are simply methods of financing further Government expenditure by taking away money from ordinary families. I am afraid that Labour remains the party of high spending.
8. Mr. Booth:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the long-term effect on public spending of his social security reforms. [28811]
Mr. Lilley:
The major reforms that I have announced to date are expected to reduce public expenditure by £5 billion a year at today's prices by the turn of the century. That will rise to £15 billion a year in the longer term.
Mr. Booth:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas Conservative policies are based on fairness and targeting help to those who are most in need, those of the Opposition are weighed down by the millstone of past commitments and the albatross of future divisions?
Mr. Lilley:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Opposition have been unable to produce any concrete proposals for reforming the social security system. We were promised six months of thinking the unthinkable and then some concrete, costed, detailed proposals. Instead, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) made a speech that even his friends thought he would regret. I shall quote one of them, writing in The Spectator:
Ms Glenda Jackson:
How can the Secretary of State possibly know what future benefits there will be when the reply that I received from his Department in response to
Mr. Lilley:
The hon. Lady knows that we have put forward and implemented detailed, concrete and costed proposals. The fact that the information is not necessarily broken down parish by parish does not discount that achievement. When the Labour party offers concrete, costed proposals, she will be in a position to argue and to ask those sorts of questions.
9. Mr. Atkins:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce the decision on equipment for the computerisation of the benefits system. [28812]
Mr. Lilley:
On 15 May, I announced that Pathway Group Ltd. had won the contract to design, install and operate the equipment that will automate the payment of benefits at post offices.
Mr. Atkins:
I welcome the fact that a British company, ICL, has led the Pathway consortium to winning the biggest computer contract in Europe to cope with the problems of fraud. As it is also coupled with the innovative software of companies such as Escher and De la Rue, does my right hon. Friend agree that the benefit card will go a long way to solving the problems of fraud and thereby provide substantial sums of money for those in real need?
Mr. Lilley:
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's welcome for that further step toward the introduction of the benefit payment card. Over the lifetime of the eight-year contract, we expect to save more than £1 billion a year by virtually eliminating method of payment fraud on order books and giros. It will make life easier for claimants and they will be less vulnerable to theft and attack. It will save the taxpayer money and reinforce the viability of the national network of post offices.
Mr. Miller:
Some months ago, the Secretary of State agreed with me about the importance of maintaining the privacy of personal data on his Department's computers. Will he publish any evidence that he has submitted to the Home Office's prior options review regarding the function of data protection in the registrar's office, or were they simply weasel words, as he has not submitted any such evidence?
Mr. Lilley:
We must stick by our duty to maintain the confidentiality of the data that we receive from benefit claimants and recipients. I will happily see whether I can publish any evidence and give it to the hon. Gentleman in order to assist him with his inquiries.
Mr. Nigel Evans:
My right hon. Friend has said that computerisation and the benefit payment card will help to crack down on fraud. Will he give a commitment to
Mr. Lilley:
Members of the public throughout the country help us by providing information about benefit fraud and abuse, and they do so by telephoning their local benefit agency. We are running spotlight campaigns throughout the country which focus on particular areas. We urge those who have drifted into fraud to make good their arrangements with us and invite people to help us. I am happy to say that thousands of people are providing information and we are making substantial savings as a result.
"he is a decent fellow"--
I share that view--
"and I cannot believe that he could re-read his own text without embarrassment."
The Opposition should forget about thinking the unthinkable and just do some thinking.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |