| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed his concerns with the Data Protection Registrar. It appears from my conversations with her that she would insist on certain safeguards, but she is happy with the principle of data matching for such benign purposes.
Mr. Hughes: That is extremely good of the Data Protection Registrar. Funnily enough, however, I was not referring to her. Although she may consider it perfectly right to do so under the regulations, she cannot possibly speak on behalf of pensioners and other potential claimants. The hon. Lady has raised an irrelevant point.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said at the end of the debate on Second Reading--although I missed the first few seconds of the speech by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), I do not think that he addressed this point--some people would be identified as potential claimants, but would not be entitled to benefit.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
I am stunned by the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. Can he provide examples of elderly people--or anyone on a tiny disposable income, living in real poverty--having objected because the Government had tried to force money on them?
Mr. Hughes:
I am sure that some people would not object, but others might. Some elderly people are very proud and might object to the state taking an overview of their lives.
6.15 pm
Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one category that includes substantial numbers consists of people who live with their families, are supported by them and choose not to claim benefit?
Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not wish to delay the House long, but there are two points to be made about the new clause. First, many pensioners would find its provisions grossly intrusive into their private lives; secondly, the information gleaned might be inaccurate and some people would be informed that they
4 Feb 1997 : Column 845
were entitled to further benefit when that was not the case. Unless those points can be answered, new clause 3 should not be added to the Bill. I shall certainly oppose it.
Mr. Chris Davies: In supporting new clause 3, I should like to take up what I understand to be the Government's argument in opposing it, which is simply that it would be impractical and would not achieve their objective. If that is the case--and some Opposition Members believe that the Government's objective is not to increase public expenditure, even to help the most needy in society--why does the Minister not simply look at the wording of the new clause? It is well intentioned, relatively harmless and unlikely to cause any problems if the Minister were to accept it. The possible benefit to be gained is that more than a million pensioners might have the opportunity to secure some of the money to which the House believes them to be entitled.
I ask the Minister to reject the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) that pensioners are reluctant to accept what is rightfully theirs, and I ask him to recognise that, although the new clause may be flawed and technically it may not be possible to implement it at present, perhaps in a few months or years there may be some advantage to be gained. Even if the advantages are minimal, at least by accepting the new clause the Minister will have swept away the criticisms of Opposition Members who suspect that he may have ulterior motives.
Mr. Heald:
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) has made some interesting comments. It is an odd principle that we should simply take a punt on the new clause, whether or not it works. We heard a detailed account of the Opposition's approach from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), but my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) really hit the nail on the head when he addressed many of the difficulties in that approach.
New clause 3 attempts to enable benefit entitlements to be identified, assessed and checked without the involvement of the individual concerned, using information already held or gathered under the provisions of the Bill. Unfortunately, it would not work, and it would take us no further forward. In fact, it would do little more than raise people's hopes when they are not entitled to benefit.
I explained in Committee the measures that are in place to make the public aware of the benefits that are available. Everyone has the choice whether or not to claim benefit; the important point is that help is there for those who need it. Assessment of entitlement to benefit is a complex procedure and not something that can be achieved without having all the relevant information available; yet by proposing that entitlement should be determined using just the information already held, that is exactly what the new clause would result in.
In respect of information in Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise records, data matching would be ineffective from a benefit take-up perspective. The Inland Revenue holds information only about taxpayers and those claiming repayments of tax; it does not hold information about non-taxable income counted for benefit purposes such as income from premium bonds, tax-
4 Feb 1997 : Column 846
Mr. Heald:
That brings me to the subject of local government, about which the hon. Lady may wish to ask me.
Our guidance to local authorities encourages them to take action to make all claimants who appear to have a potential entitlement to income support aware that help may be available to them from the Benefits Agency. Many local authorities have software available to automate that. With regard to income support records, a service level agreement between the Benefits Agency and local authorities allows for information to be exchanged, and that will continue. Income support claim forms contain a form inviting the income support claimant to claim housing benefit and/or council tax benefit.
Mrs. Campbell:
Does the Minister agree that many pensioners who claim council tax benefit are entitled to income support but do not claim it even though they have been told by their local authority that they may be entitled to it? His proposals do not deal with that. That is precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) is trying to overcome.
Mr. Heald:
I recognise the hon. Lady's concern, but the difficulty is that, although it is quite right to make all pensioners and individuals who are entitled to benefit aware of their entitlements--and such help is quite properly available--it is for the individual to decide whether they wish to claim benefit.
The Government's view is that to undertake a means- testing exercise behind people's backs and without their permission, which would also not be accurate, is the wrong way forward. Making pensioners aware, through information made available by the Government through leafleting, sending information to various information points, visiting pensioner groups and co-ordinating the sort of pensioner awareness campaign that has recently been running in conjunction with Help the Aged and other elderly people's groups is the better way forward.
With regard to income support rules, if the income support claimant does not indicate that he or she wishes to claim housing benefit or council tax benefit and does not complete the claim form that we issue, I do not believe that it is right for him or her to be pursued or for us to insist that they make a claim. This is a free country, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said in a different context, and we must accept that there may be reasons why individuals genuinely do not want to claim.
Mr. Heald:
I think that I gave an example earlier.
4 Feb 1997 : Column 847
Mr. Flynn:
It is ludicrous to say--and no evidence of it has been given--that pensioners are not claiming benefits because they do not want the money. It would be extraordinary if that were so. We know that the reason is that they are ignorant of available allowances. The awareness campaign would impress us a great deal more if the Government had not recently made cuts in the telephone hotline service--the main service that told people what was available.
Mr. Heald:
I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the purpose of closing the general advice line. It was closed because numerous people were ringing to ask about their personal circumstances and were having to be told that they would have to get in touch with their local office if they wanted anything to be done. We are localising the service. Why bother having an intermediate step when individuals can ring their local office where trained staff are able to answer their inquiries? The hon. Gentleman says that we all know that individuals do not claim because they do not know about the rules, but we do not know that that is so. What we know is that a significant number of people do not claim, and I believe that there may be a variety of reasons for that.
The Government believe that it is a better use of resources to ensure that information about benefit entitlement is freely available in the public domain, and that is what we do. The Department and its agencies take extensive action to publicise the wide range of benefits that are available. It is a clear measure of success that in 1994-95--the most recent year recorded--£9 out of every £10 of available benefit was claimed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |