| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Income Support (Pensioners)
9. Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of pensioners dependent on income support in retirement.[883]
Mr. Denham: In August 1996, a total of 1,768,000 pensioners were in receipt of income support. We are concerned that up to 1 million pensioners do not receive the income support to which they are entitled. We are commissioning research so that we can more fully understand why they do not claim or receive benefit.
Mr. Watts: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Does he agree that the poor take-up of income support by pensioners is not just a matter of personal choice, as the previous Government claimed, but that many pensioners feel that a stigma is attached to claiming means-tested benefits?
Mr. Denham: I welcome my hon. Friend to the House and thank him for his question. It is clear from what we already know that a range of barriers prevents pensioners from claiming income support, and the stigma associated with claiming benefit may be one. We should understand all the barriers facing pensioners who do not claim income support so that we can move forward.
Mr. Fallon: Is it not precisely that group of pensioners who are entitled to a clear answer on the question of the pensioners' Christmas bonus, to which the Secretary of State alluded a few moments ago? Will the Minister confirm that, under the review, that bonus could be scrapped?
Mr. Denham: Pensioners need to know clearly why, year after year, the Conservative Government showed such disinterest in the plight of the poorest pensioners. We raised the issue in opposition, but were told that pensioners went without income support because they chose to live in poverty. I doubt that that is true, which is why we need to understand the barriers to their claiming income support.
Invalidity Benefits
10. Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals she has to reduce the pressures on beneficiaries to come off invalidity benefits.[884]
Mr. Denham: The recent Social Security Select Committee inquiry into incapacity benefit raised a number of issues about the benefit and the operation of the all work test. We will consider the evidence received by the
Committee and judge whether the current operation of the test represents a fair assessment of an individual's incapacity for work for benefit purposes.
Mr. Mitchell: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new responsibilities. I hope that the whole team will be tough on fraud and prevent any attempt to swing the lead. I hope that that will be recorded for Excalibur.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the medical test of fitness for work to qualify for invalidity benefit has become far too crude and simplistic? It asks doctors to decide matters of employment policy and suitability for jobs rather than strictly medical matters.
Mr. Denham:
It is important that we examine carefully the evidence on the operation of the all work test that was given to the Social Security Select Committee. If my hon. Friend is concerned about specific cases, I ask him to provide us with details. It is important that the test for incapacity benefit commands confidence as a fair system that appropriately assesses whether an individual is incapable of work for benefit purposes.
Mr. Llwyd:
I agree with the Minister, but will he urgently examine the physical symptoms that must be demonstrated by people suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis or various other non-physical complaints? They are placed at a gross disadvantage from the outset. The test must be re-examined--urgently, please.
Mr. Denham:
I repeat my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). We will examine the evidence on the operation of the test, because we wish to ensure that it commands confidence.
Mr. Pike:
I welcome the Minister's comments on the Government's commitment to re-examine the all work test, which is clearly unfair. Many appeals succeed, so will he assure us that the appeals system will not be changed pending that re-examination? The appeal system has been under threat, but we must ensure that appeals that may prove successful can be made.
Mr. Denham:
We want to ensure that the appeal system is simple and straightforward and that it does not contain some of the complexities and delays that are currently encountered. I assure my hon. Friend that, as the appeal system develops, we will improve the way in which it operates.
11. Mr. Lidington:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to change the level of benefits paid to lone parents.[885]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley):
The Government have given a commitment to remain within spending totals this year and next and, in the light of the 20 social security cuts made by the previous Administration, we are examining a range of options to do so. The Secretary of
Mr. Lidington:
Is it the Government's policy to implement the previous Government's plans to integrate payment of lone parent premium and lone parent benefit for new claimants with the comparable benefits available to married couples? If not, where does the Minister expect to find the money to fill the consequent gap in his Department's spending plans?
Mr. Bradley:
The Secretary of State has already made it clear that, because of our inheritance from the previous Administration, we are examining a range of options. An announcement will be made in the Budget.
Mr. Rowlands:
That was the second time in this Question Time that Ministers mentioned 20 cuts that they discovered, but which were not announced by previous Ministers. Will the Minister describe those 20 cuts, please?
Mr. Bradley:
I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House. He makes a very important point, because those cuts cover all aspects of social security spending. We have inherited a complicated situation, which we are urgently reviewing. We will consider how to deal with it in the forthcoming Budget and in the subsequent uprating order.
12. Mr. John Cryer:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will undertake a review of the workings of the Child Support Agency.[886]
Mr. Keith Bradley:
The Government believe that children are entitled to the financial support and, ideally, the emotional support of both parents, wherever the parents may live. In the coming months, we will carefully examine how to ensure that the Child Support Agency provides an efficient and effective service to assess and collect due maintenance.
Mr. Cryer:
I am very grateful for that answer. Is it not clear, however, that the Child Support Agency is simply not working? It is not working because it was incompetently established by the previous Government so that they could subsidise their own spending.
Mr. Bradley:
I welcome my hon. Friend to the House, and I thank him for his question. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have criticised the way in which the Child Support Agency was established, the way in which legislation on it was passed and the way in which the agency has subsequently been administered. I am pleased to say, however, that the CSA is working more efficiently. The number of assessments is now up to 580,000, and the percentage of those partially or fully compliant has risen to 64 per cent. I should stress to my hon. Friend and to all hon. Members who are critical of the CSA that, in the coming months, we will conduct a review of the agency, and that we will subsequently announce further proposals.
Mr. Forsythe:
On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the Minister and his colleagues to the Dispatch Box and wish them well.
Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the CSA has been responsible for causing more dissension between former partners than anything else? Will the Government please examine the whole system and take into account the recommendations of the previous Select Committee on Social Security? It proposed a single sum per child rather than the formula that is considered ridiculous by many people and that, I believe, cannot be understood by those who implement it, and certainly not by those who pay or receive payment?
Mr. Bradley:
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am aware of his excellent work as a member of the Select Committee and of the Committee's invaluable reports on this topic. I am also aware of the problems caused by the complexity of the formula, which I assure him will be considered in great detail in our review of the CSA.
14. Mr. Jim Cunningham:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to tackle benefit dependency.[890]
Ms Harman:
Tackling benefit dependency is one of this Government's highest priorities. Lack of work is one of the greatest causes of poverty for families in Britain today, which is why tackling it is a priority.
Mr. Cunningham:
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and other Ministers on their appointment. There is another dimension to child care--the role of employers and employers' associations. What are my right hon. Friend's plans, and those of other Departments, to take up with employers the very important issue of child care?
Ms Harman:
We want a public-private partnership in implementing our national child care strategy because it is an important part of enabling lone mothers and, indeed, married women to work. Child care should be regarded as part of the national economic infrastructure and as important to women as the roads and railways on which they travel to work.
My hon. Friend is always concerned about the people of working age in his constituency who are out of work. He has drawn to my attention the fact that, in addition to his 3,000 constituents who are registered as unemployed, a further 27,000 people of working age in the Coventry area are not in work, and many of them are bringing up their children on benefits. Our national child care strategy is an important part of our welfare-to-work strategy for the one in five workless households.
Mr. Willetts:
Will the Secretary of State put into perspective the Government's aim of taking 250,000 young people off benefit and getting them into work by confirming that last year 300,000 young people aged 18 to 24 came off benefit and went into work? Is the Government's target recognition of the fact that, under their policy for a minimum wage, they will do worse than the previous Government?
Ms Harman:
The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the time for complacency about young people who are not working is over. It is unacceptable that people who should
Mr. McAllion:
One of the proposals to reduce benefit dependency made at the fag end of the Tory Government was to restrict housing benefit for single claimants under 60 who rented in the private sector by denying them the right to exclusive use of a bathroom, a toilet or a kitchen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that proposal was a disgrace, treating benefit claimants as second-class citizens? May we have an assurance that it will not figure in the proposals made by our Government?
Ms Harman:
My hon. Friend raises an important point. During 18 years of Conservative government--
Madam Speaker:
Order. Would the right hon. Lady address the House? She is constantly turning round. I understand the temptation to do so, but she is addressing the House, not an individual Member.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |