THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND [WHICH OPENED 7 MAY 1997]
FORTY-SIXTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 295
SECOND VOLUME OF SESSION 1997-98
House of Commons
Monday 2 June 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
SOCIAL SECURITY
Benefits Take-up
1. Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to improve her Department's monitoring of the take-up of benefits.[875]
The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): The Government are anxious that those who are eligible for benefits claim those benefits. Necessarily, much of our attention will go to those who are retired, for it is among the retired that large amounts of unclaimed benefit exist. That, however, will not be an exclusive policy. Members may have noticed in the Sunday press two weeks ago that the Department advertised an increase in eligibility for industrial injury benefit for those underground miners who may be eligible for benefit due to their chronic bronchitis or emphysema.
Mr. Baker: I welcome the Minister to his new post. I welcome also his response in recognising that there is
a need to increase the take-up of benefits. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for many people, Government benefits forms present a real challenge, and that that acts as a discouragement for those who seek to take up benefit and are entitled to do so? Will the Minister undertake to review all Government forms to ensure that, in future, those who are eligible for benefit are not discouraged from receiving it?
Mr. Field: In the Government's total review of welfare, we shall ensure that we review the eligibility form.
Mr. Lilley: I welcome the Minister to his post and congratulate the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and her entire ministerial team, on taking responsibility for the largest and most sensitive Department in government, which has a splendid team of civil servants, as the right hon. Lady and her ministerial colleagues will discover. I wish them well.
The Prime Minister is even now recycling an Opposition speech elsewhere on the take-up of benefits by lone parents. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Labour intends to pay new lone parents higher rates of benefit than those paid to married couples in equivalent circumstances from next April rather than equalising them as we, the previous Government, had proposed? Will he confirm also that this will cost the taxpayer ultimately an extra half a billion pounds a year?
Mr. Field:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I welcome him to his new position.
As the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps not all of those who sit behind me, will know, the previous Government left about 20 cuts for the present Government to consider. When we have considered all the work that they did not do but built into their expenditure plan, we shall make an announcement to the House.
2. Mr. Spring:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those currently retiring are in receipt of occupational pensions.[876]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham):
Around 70 per cent. of recently retired married couples and single pensioners are in receipt of an occupational pension.
For most people, a good occupational pension will ensure security in retirement. The Government want to see existing occupational pension schemes strengthened and, where possible, their coverage extended.
Mr. Spring:
Does the Minister agree that nothing has been more liberating than the rise in incomes for retired people flowing from the personal savings and occupational pension schemes that have been available to them? What specific incentives does the Minister have in mind to encourage the growth of those opportunities so that people may feel more secure in old age?
Mr. Denham:
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that pension savings are important. It was a matter of concern that the membership by male full-time workers of occupational pension schemes fell considerably during the tenure of the previous Government. We wish to strengthen and encourage well-funded second-tier provision, and in due course we shall be consulting on our proposals for stakeholder pensions to bring the advantages of funded second pensions to those who do not presently have the opportunity to join an employer's occupational pension scheme.
Mr. Miller:
I welcome my hon. Friend to his position. In the light of the concerns that I have expressed about H. H. Robertsons in my constituency, do the Government intend to review the safety provisions within occupational pensions?
Mr. Denham:
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he did in the previous Parliament in drawing the attention of the House to the problems faced by that particular employer and pension scheme. I understand that that scheme is currently being considered by the regulator, so my hon. Friend will understand if I do not comment in detail on it. We certainly will wish to take stock of the way in which the Pensions Act 1995 is being implemented in practice, and consider the evidence to see whether any further measures are required to ensure the security of pension schemes, in their members' interests.
3. Mr. Andy King:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the level of waste in the social security system.[877]
Mr. Field:
The Government will act resolutely against fraud.
Mr. King:
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his well-deserved appointment as Minister for Welfare Reform--
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will not tolerate so many people struggling to make ends meet while so many others are taking advantage of the social security system? What will the Government do to tackle fraud and bring back public confidence and support for the social security system? No reading there.
Mr. Field:
Also, no reading here. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question--
Mr. Field:
As the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister with responsibility for schools, I had hoped for a better intervention than that.
I hope that, by the end of this Parliament, the House will see that we have achieved two clear objectives: first, to re-secure confidence in our social security system, by ensuring that those who are eligible claim; and, secondly, by preventing those who are claiming benefit wrongly from doing so. The House will therefore see a somewhat different strategy from that employed by the previous regime.
I compliment the previous Secretary of State on the preliminary work that he did in this area, but hope that very shortly he will see a redeployment of our staff so that we concentrate on areas where fraud is greatest. Only two London boroughs, to my knowledge--Haringey and Lambeth--have undertaken surveys on landlord fraud, and both are to be congratulated. Both boroughs looked at landlords who are drawing a considerable amount of benefit. Looking at the worst offenders, in both boroughs, some 65 per cent. of claims were fraudulent. We shall redeploy our resources so that the biggest gains are made for taxpayers, rather than unnecessarily roughing up individual claimants.
Mr. Garnier:
Will the Prime Minister's plans, which were trailed over the weekend, save the social security system money, or will they cost it money, and by how much in either case?
Mr. Field:
One crucial part of the speech that was trailed, rather inaccurately, over the weekend--[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Opposition Members have to wait only a short while and the speech will be published. It concerns our plans to give those who are 18 to 25 and unemployed, a chance to be employed. The moneys for that programme will be raised by the windfall tax in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. In that sense, in the immediate future, the plans will cost money. In the long run, the Labour party believes that putting people back to work will save money.
4. Mr. Lawrie Quinn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's plans for pensioners.[878]
6. Sir Teddy Taylor:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the 25p per week additional payment for the over-80s and the £10 Christmas bonus to take account of rising costs since these amounts were fixed.[880]
Ms Harriet Harman):
The Government will tackle poverty in retirement, and are determined that all pensioners shall share fairly in rising national prosperity.
Mr. Quinn:
On behalf of my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby, I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work that needs to be done for pensioners throughout the country involves other Departments as well as hers? Should not all Departments pay due regard to the need for a national concessionary travel scheme for pensioners and the disabled? Certainly, one of the commitments that I made to the electorate in my constituency was that I would work in the House to bring about such a scheme and promote it.
Ms Harman:
I welcome my hon. Friend to the House, where I know that he will be a champion of pensioners in Scarborough and Whitby. He has already made a number of proposals which my Department is considering, and I am happy to respond to his question about concessionary fares for pensioners on public transport.
Pensioners have retired from work, but they have not retired from life. It is important for all Departments to ensure that they have not only good incomes, but access to public transport. Many pensioners work for voluntary organisations and are an important part of the community, but they cannot perform such a role if they are isolated in their homes. Part of that isolation is due to inadequate incomes, and part is due to inability to travel--a subject that I am discussing with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson).
Sir Teddy Taylor:
Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be serious disappointment in the pensioner community if early action is not taken to deal with the two specific anomalies to which I referred in Question 6? She should bear in mind that, during the general election, the impression was created that new Labour would be more sympathetic to elderly people.
Does the Secretary of State realise that the cash that we spend every day, and send to Brussels every day to be spent on waste and extravagance, could make a significant difference to that absurd amount of 25p a week for the over-80s?
Ms Harman:
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the over-80s. He will know of our manifesto commitment to make it a priority to help the poorest pensioners, many of whom are women over 80, living alone, with no state earnings-related pensions, no occupational pensions, no savings, no nothing. They will be beneficiaries of our determination to secure income support for the poorest pensioners.
In the area covering the hon. Gentleman's constituency, some 9,000 pensioners are now dependent on income support and have to claim means-tested benefit. About 3,000 more are entitled to income support, but do not receive it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work with us to ensure that the poorest pensioners in his constituency receive what they are entitled to.
Mr. Winnick:
If there is a machine anywhere that keeps a record of our views and statements, I should be
Does my right hon. Friend agree that pensioners are now asking for two things in particular, apart from any increase? First, they are asking to be given, during the winter months, the financial protection that they are undoubtedly denied at present. Many suffer misery and hardship during the coldest months. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend persuade her Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for National Heritage, to look again at the possibility of a concessionary television licence? The proposal for such a licence was defeated just over 10 years ago as a result of strenuous Tory opposition.
Ms Harman:
I know that my hon. Friend has long been a champion of pensioners in the House, and will continue to be.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of cold weather payments. It is a scandal that, in Britain today, after a lifetime of working or caring for their families, pensioners should be among the poorest in the country, many having so little income that they must choose between heating and eating. Entitlement to cold weather payments is dependent on the claiming of income support, which means that the 1 million pensioners who do not claim income support receive no cold weather payments. They will benefit from our attempt to secure income support for the poorest pensioners. The Government have also pledged to cut value added tax on gas and electricity. That unfair tax is one of the factors that have deterred elderly people from ensuring that they have the heating that they need.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will consider my hon. Friend's question about concessionary television licences; I shall draw it to his attention.
Mr. Webb:
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, may I welcome the right hon. Lady and her ministerial team to the Dispatch Box. On welfare reform, does she agree with me that investment in affordable, quality child care is the only way to reduce the number of lone parents on income support, and that the spare change from the midweek lottery does not constitute such an investment?
Ms Harman:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He has a long and distinguished record of work on social security and welfare reform. I agree with him that lack of affordable, high-quality, accessible child care is one of the reasons why 1 million lone mothers have to bring up 2 million children on the breadline on income support. The National Council for One Parent Families--which I met--and the Daycare Trust will work with us to develop and implement a national child care strategy that will help lone mothers to do what they want to do: which is to get out and work instead of being dependent on benefits. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also work with us to achieve that.
Mr. Bennett:
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post. Does she appreciate that, when the Christmas bonus was introduced, it was equal to one week's pension? Cold logic might suggest that it should now be abolished, given its £10 value and the administrative costs. Does she realise
Ms Harman:
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We shall shortly announce a review of pensioners' incomes. For the first time, the voice of pensioners will be at the heart of government through the National Pensioners Convention. We shall hear their voice when we determine our policy. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of the Christmas bonus, which I am sure will be considered in the review.
Mr. Heald:
In joining the general welcome to the right hon. Lady, may I ask her whether the review will include the expenditure totals for her Department? Does she stand by Labour's plan to equalise the state pension age at 60, with a reduced pension of £40 a week--Labour's pension cut? Will she finally apologise for Labour's scaring lie tactics during the general election campaign? The Labour party tried to scare frail, elderly pensioners with lies about them losing their pensions.
Ms Harman:
The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no question of a cut in the basic state pension. We have made it absolutely clear that we shall keep the basic state pension, and it will be uprated in line with prices. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is as concerned as we are about the 5,000 pensioners in his constituency who have no second-tier pension and must depend on income support, and about the 1,500 pensioners in his constituency who are entitled to income support but live below the breadline because they do not receive it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |