28 Jan 1997 : Column 135
House of Commons
Tuesday 28 January 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Imperial College Bill
Tamar Bridge Bill
Read a Second Time, and committed.
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 4 February.
Means-tested Benefit
1. Mr. Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of people are currently dependent on means-tested benefits; and what were the figures for 1979. [11368]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The latest estimate is that 26.4 per cent. of the population live in households receiving income support, family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit or council tax benefit. It is not possible to make a direct comparison with the position in 1979 since the present structure of the benefits did not exist then.
Mr. Berry: Can the Minister confirm that in 1979 one in 12 people were dependent on means-tested benefits and that today the figure has doubled to one in six? Is this not the result of what the Bishop of Liverpool recently described as the "running sores" of unemployment, low pay and poverty, all of which have increased dramatically under the Government?
Mr. Mitchell: I am surprised at the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked. He should know that unemployment benefit takes up about 10 per cent. of the Department of Social Security budget. He should condemn the Opposition Front Bench, which wants means testing to be extended. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government being returned after the next general election, I understand that Labour's proposals are to means-test both child benefit and the state pension, which would mean a significant increase in means testing.
28 Jan 1997 : Column 136
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that two thirds of the growth in social security spending has been directed to helping the disabled. The Government have provided an enormous increase in support for them, as they have in helping the elderly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House which part of that growth he would like to retract.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to get people off means-tested benefits is to get them into work? Is it not important, therefore, to recognise that under this Government two jobs have been created every minute since 1992? That figure has not been disputed by the International Labour Organisation or even by the Labour party. The Government are creating jobs. Should not we take the words of the Bishop of Liverpool as endorsing the Government's policies?
Mr. Mitchell:
My hon. Friend is right. The Government's policy is dedicated to getting people back into work. It has been extremely successful, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. Since the general election, unemployment has fallen by more than 1 million. The United Kingdom has more of its citizens in work and fewer unemployed than any other major European country.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced the introduction of parent plus, which will be piloted from April. Parent plus will be the best scheme anywhere in the world for helping lone parents back into work. It is shortly to be piloted throughout the United Kingdom. The private sector will be involved as well as the public sector. The Government are taking decisive and effective action to help the unemployed, yet all we hear from the Opposition is meaningless waffle that is designed to con the electorate.
Mr. Wicks:
Can the Minister explain why it is that one in three babies in Tory Britain are born to families that are dependent on the means test, compared with one in 10 in 1979? Will he help the House work out why it is that a Tory Government who in 1979 promised to get the state off people's backs have ended up creating a massive dependency state, one which includes a quarter of all households in Britain?
Mr. Mitchell:
We all care about helping the people whom the hon. Gentleman has just described. The Labour party has a pretty strange definition of poverty: it means that when we increase income support levels, its measure of poverty also increases. The Government have a range of policies designed to help people back into work. In the lone parent area, the hon. Gentleman will know of the importance of the after-school kiddies clubs, which have been greatly expanded under the Government's programme. The Government have put £24 million on the table to help expand that form of after-school child care. I reject what the hon. Gentleman said, and underline the Government's success in helping people back into work.
2. Mr. Bellingham:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for avoiding fraud in the benefit system; and if he will make a statement. [11369]
28 Jan 1997 : Column 137
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley):
Tackling fraud and abuse is my top priority. The Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill, which successfully completed its Committee stage this morning, will strengthen our ability to fight fraud, and will enable us to galvanise local authorities into tackling fraud in housing benefit.
Mr. Bellingham:
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining the action that the Government are taking. Will he join me in paying tribute to the staff in the King's Lynn benefits office, who work very hard to tackle fraud in Norfolk and elsewhere? Is he aware of a particular problem in Norfolk due to the recent arrival from eastern Europe of illegal immigrants who have sought work and, in some cases, benefits? Does he agree that such abuse must be tackled? What is he doing about it?
Mr. Lilley:
I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Benefits Agency staff in King's Lynn and throughout the country. They work with dedication and commitment to help those entitled to benefit and to ensure that money does not go to those who are not entitled to it.
I shall look into the problem in my hon. Friend's constituency of illegal immigrants and others who are not entitled to benefits claiming them in those circumstances.
Mr. Alan Howarth:
Does the Secretary of State accept that the data-matching powers in the fraud Bill will prejudice privacy and confer unprecedented powers on the state? Will he give constructive consideration to the case for introducing into the Bill a code of practice to ensure that central and local government departments and contracted agencies comply with the best international standards for data protection?
Mr. Lilley:
I do not accept that those powers are an infringement of civil liberties. We are not requiring any more information from individuals than is already taken. We are simply using the power to ensure that people are not, for example, working and claiming. We have said that we will consider the appropriateness of codes of practice, and we will discuss that matter with those responsible for data protection.
Mr. John Marshall:
Can my right hon. Friend tell the House about the success of his fraud hotline, which has been warmly welcomed by the majority of taxpayers who work hard and do not see why their taxes should help fraudsters?
Mr. Lilley:
I can tell my hon. Friend that the fraud hotline has been extremely successful. More than 100,000 calls have been received. They are still coming in at a rate of more than 5,000 a week, which is high such a long time after the original announcement. It shows that honest, upright individuals are incensed by the minority who try to rip off the system. We entirely uphold their opinions.
28 Jan 1997 : Column 138
3. Mrs. Jane Kennedy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on housing benefit fraud by landlords. [11370]
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt):
We have a comprehensive strategy, which is strengthened by the current fraud Bill, to combat all housing benefit fraud, including landlord fraud. We support local authorities through an incentive scheme and, now, through challenge funding, £8 million of challenge funds were made available to authorities in 1996-97, and we will double that to £16 million in 1997-98. We are also setting up an inspectorate to help to ensure that all authorities tackle fraud effectively.
Mrs. Kennedy:
Notwithstanding the Minister's answer, will he confirm that housing benefit fraud is currently estimated to cost us £2 billion a year, and that the largest part of that is recognised to be organised landlord fraud? Have not the Government missed an opportunity, during the passing of the fraud Bill, to introduce a new offence of landlord fraud, as the Opposition suggested? Does that not show the Government's commitment to a deregulated, private housing-for-rent market at all costs, including costs to the taxpayer?
Mr. Burt:
I do not recognise all the figures given by the hon. Lady. Housing benefit fraud is estimated at about £1 billion, and landlord fraud constitutes about £150 million of that, so it is not the largest part.
The Bill that we are currently taking through the House substantially strengthens powers against all forms of fraud, including landlord fraud. All the measures involved--data matching, new powers of entry to landlords' premises, more ways of recovering overpaid housing benefit, and easier prosecution and stiffer penalties where false representations have been made for claims--including up to seven years' imprisonment for one offence--show that we deliver serious penalties for housing benefit and landlord fraud. For all that the hon. Lady says, it is we who introduced those measures, and we have brought the Opposition along with us.
Sir Donald Thompson:
Will my hon. Friend ensure that he pursues landlord fraud vigorously in Liverpool, London or wherever it occurs? At the end of the day, it makes honest landlords less likely to let their properties and, consequently, makes honest people looking for property less likely to find any.
Mr. Burt:
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is important for the private rented market to continue to expand; it is important to the integrity of benefit for it to be properly handled, and for fraud to be clamped down. We are prepared to consider ideas advanced by all kinds of authority, and, indeed, the local authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) has received a £140,000 challenge fund grant to help it to root out more landlord fraud.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |