---

Computer Systems

6. Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the millennium compliance of his Department's computer systems and those connected with them; and if he will make a statement. [6850]

Mr. Burt: We have set up a central project to assess and manage the effects of the year 2000 date change. Investigative work is well under way. A full analysis of the work necessary to achieve compliance and an estimate of costs are expected to be completed by the end of January 1997.

Mr. Atkinson: In view of the crucial importance of the efficient and uninterrupted provision of pensions and benefits, not least at the turn of the century, does my hon. Friend agree that it will not be enough to ensure that the computer systems for which his Department is responsible are millennium compliant? What is he doing to ensure that computer systems in the private sector to which his Department's systems are connected will be safe in time?

Mr. Burt: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest in this important topic. I can confirm that the Department is working with its external suppliers, as their compatibility is crucial. I am sure that he will be glad to know that all new contracts are year 2000 compliant, and that existing contracts are being reviewed--and renegotiated where necessary--to ensure full compliance.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: A Minister told us yesterday that the switch for the millennium would be an extremely

10 Dec 1996 : Column 110

expensive project. Can the Minister tell us whether his projections for costs, which clearly come before the final projections in January, are included in the Red Book for the coming year and up until 1999?

Mr. Burt: At the moment, it is not possible for our Department to estimate precisely what the costs will be. The programme is that the report I mentioned in my main answer will be ready for the departmental board by the end of January 1997. By the end of August 1997, the work that needs to be done on costings will be done, and we expect the project to be implemented in the Department and all our systems to be compatible by the end of August 1998. We have some 18 major systems and some 1,500 small and medium-size systems. At the moment, it simply is not possible to make an estimate with any degree of credibility or accuracy. The work is under way, and as soon as those costs are available they will be made available to the House.

Child Benefit

7. Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds on the number of children staying in full-time education. [6851]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The proportion of 16-year-olds staying on at school is up from 42 per cent. in 1979 to 71 per cent. in 1995; for 17-year-olds, it has more than doubled from 27 per cent. to around 60 per cent.; and for 18-year-olds, it has nearly trebled, from 15 per cent. to 40 per cent.

Child benefit is a substantial part of the available financial support--last year, £644 million was paid to more than a million families with young people aged 16 and over in full-time education. It has provided, and will continue to provide, reliable and regular financial support, contributing £560 a year to the family income--and more than £1,000 if there are two such children in the family.

Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that, for many families, the sum of £560 makes the crucial difference between the education and non-education of their children? Can my hon. Friend confirm that that sum--£560 for parents with children at school over the age of 16--would be lost under proposals from the Labour party?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend's analysis is absolutely right. Furthermore, Labour, having wrongly analysed the problem it sought to address, now compounds its error by proposing to take away more than £1,000 from parents with two teenagers. That is Labour's teenage tax and it is the equivalent of 5p on the income tax of such families.

Benefit Recipients (Newham)

8. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current estimate of the number of persons receiving benefit in Newham. [6852]

Mr. Roger Evans: Some information on the numbers receiving individual benefits in Newham is available.

10 Dec 1996 : Column 111

However, as people often receive more than one benefit, I cannot supply information on how many, in total, are receiving benefit.

Mr. Banks: That sounds a bit like a cop-out. We know that there are tens of thousands of such people. It would help if the Minister would register that fact, because it shows the extent of poverty in Newham.

Is the Minister aware that one of the worst problems arises from the habitual residence test--which exists not in law, but only in Benefits Agency guidance? The way in which the test impacts tends to vary between offices. For example, in Stratford, two thirds of people fail the test; in Plaistow, only 8 per cent. do so. When people fail, they lose all benefit, which means that social services must pick up an enormous burden. On appeal, large numbers of people succeed in overturning the original decision, but in the meantime they have to suffer. May we please have some proper statistics on the way in which the test impacts in Newham, and further monitoring of the different ways in which it is applied by benefit offices?

Mr. Evans: It is not a cop-out. I can supply the hon. Gentleman with the detailed figures, but I will not weary the House with them--[Hon. Members: "Oh."] If the House wishes to be wearied, I shall start reading. For the most recently available date, the figure for those on income support is 33,000; for unemployment benefit before 7 October, it is 16,000; for housing benefit, 41,000; and for council tax benefit, 35,000. For many of the other benefits, information is not broken down on a borough basis.

Newham's particular problems with deprivation are recognised by the Government in the generosity of the standard spending assessment under the local government settlement. The hon. Gentleman said that the habitual residence test was applied inconsistently between benefit offices. If he cares to write to me with specific case details, I shall happily investigate the matter.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend has told us how many people receive benefit in Newham. How many more people in Newham would receive benefit if we were to sign up to the minimum wage and the social chapter, thereby adopting the job-destroying policy of the Opposition?

Mr. Evans: An unknown number, but a great deal more.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that an increasing number of people in Newham who previously received benefit because they were incapacitated are now, on a medical examination, found allegedly fit for work? Will he tell the House whether the recent changes in the rules were based on sound medical advice--and, if so, from whom--or whether there is some other motivation in the Government's mind?

Mr. Evans: The latest figures that I have show that 7,447 people in Newham receive incapacity benefit. My hon. Friend the Minister of State set out the position with the appeals process a moment ago.

10 Dec 1996 : Column 112

On the all work test, the Government have always acted on expert medical advice.

State Pension

9. Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in respect of a review of the decision to raise pensions in line with prices rather than earnings. [6853]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): We receive many representations on this point. The fact remains that the estimated net cost of increasing the basic pension from April 1997 by the higher of earnings or prices since 1980 would be £7.9 billion.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy remains one of continuing to increase the retirement pension in line with inflation and targeting additional help on the elderly poor? Does he agree that, from the figure that he has mentioned, no Government could afford to restore the earnings link? Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Opposition to criticise the removal of the earnings link without committing themselves to restoring it?

Mr. Heald: Despite the ending of the earnings link, the average net incomes of pensioners have risen by 51 per cent. since 1979. That is because we have maintained the value of the basic state pension, encouraged private provision and targeted help on those most in need.

What is the Opposition's advice? It is vague and subject to a review body. We have exchanged the dangerous old certainties of Labour for a new dangerous uncertainty. As Baroness Castle put it--well, it is meaningless, is it not?

Mr. Denham: Among the pensioners who have to supplement their basic state pensions are war pensioners. Will the Minister confirm that three of the administrative changes that are proposed--ending reminders, ending automatic uprating or review and requiring independent evidence--will mean that, over and above any administrative savings, 16,000 war pensioners, according to the Department's own civil servants, will lose out? Will the Minister confirm that 16,000 war pensioners will lose out as a result of those so-called administrative savings?

Mr. Heald: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier--it made the position clear--and also to what BLESMA, the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association, has said:

"The Government proposals introduce a number of improvements which will benefit both War Pensioners and War Widows and materially assist the War Pensions Agency in dealing more expeditiously with claims and appeals."

That is what the people at the sharp end say. They do not go scaremongering, like the Opposition.

Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend recall how easy it was for the Labour party to link pensions with rises in

10 Dec 1996 : Column 113

average earnings? In those days, Labour's management of the national economy was so incompetent that prices were rising a good deal faster than average earnings.

Mr. Heald: As my hon. Friend says, the Labour party in government robbed pensioners. There was 15 per cent. inflation every year for people who had saved throughout their lives. That is why we now need to target extra help on those who are most in need--and we are doing that: an extra £1.2 billion has been provided every year since 1988.

---