| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jobseeker's Allowance
3. Professor Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the rules governing eligibility for the jobseeker's allowance.[4336]
5. Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes she plans to make to the jobseeker's allowance.[4338]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. Our welfare-to-work objectives are to provide work incentives, to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to strike a new balance between rights and responsibilities. A programme of monitoring and evaluation is under way to enable us to ensure that the jobseeker's allowance contributes to achieving our objectives.
Professor Webb: In reviewing the jobseeker's allowance, will the Minister examine cases such as that of my constituent, Mr. Peter Free, who is undertaking a worthwhile course and who has been told by the job centre to give it up, despite doing well in the first year of the course, in favour of a dead-end job? Is that the Government's policy, or will they break from the previous Government's policy?
Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of that constituency case. Clearly, within the evaluation of the jobseeker's allowance, we are carefully considering the way in which education and training interact with the need to return to work. I have considered carefully the constituency case. I do not think that it would be appropriate to discuss the precise details in the Chamber, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, after questions today, I will discuss the matter further with him to ensure that his constituent is given the correct advice on training and job opportunities.
Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted to hear that we are reviewing the benefit, but I wonder whether the Minister--I mean my hon. Friend; I have just got to get into the habit--could help me with a few immediate points. What have we done in the meantime to ease administration of the benefit, to ease the petty meanness, to protect the staff and to ease the strain on them, all of which we exposed powerfully when the legislation was passed?
Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, because it is essential that we give credit to the staff who deal with claimants for the benefit. We have to ensure that it is administered efficiently and effectively, and that it forms a proper platform of our welfare-to-work programme. I assure him that his points will form part of the evaluation.
Mr. Forth: Given the Minister's reply to the original question, what will be the difference between his approach to the jobseeker's allowance and that of the previous Government?
Mr. Bradley: The most essential part of the jobseeker's allowance is integral to our welfare-to-work programme: that we put forward options that give genuine opportunities for people to return to work, because work
is what they want. That is the difference between this Government and the previous Government, who did not put work at the top of the agenda.
Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend carefully consider the way in which people with learning difficulties are treated in the assessment for the allowance?
Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know of his particular concern on this issue from previous correspondence and from the occasions when he has raised the matter in the House. I assure him again that, within the evaluation, the problems of people with learning difficulties will be fully taken into account in our welfare-to-work programmes.
State Pension
4. Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations she has received on the level of the state pension.[4337]
The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): The Government are committed to reviewing all the main areas of insecurity affecting pensioners. In that review, pensioners' views will be important, but the review will take place within a framework of trying to achieve two objectives. The first is how we ensure pensioners share in this country's rising prosperity; the second is how we automatically deliver more help to the poorest pensioners.
Mr. Amess: Will the Minister tell the House and my constituents in Southend, West what proportion of average retirement income the state pension accounts for today, and what proportion he expects it to account for in five years' time?
Mr. Field: All that I can say is that, under the previous Government, the state pension's value fell by 6 per cent: from 21 per cent. of average earnings to 15 per cent. of average earnings. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little longer to see the successes of our reviews and of our economic strategy before anyone can sensibly answer that question.
Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend give us the assurance--I am sure that he can--that, in any discussions about the level of the pension, his Department will keep in the closest possible contact with the various pensioners' groups and organisations? Does he agree that one of the problems in dealing with pensioners' groups is the profound sense of betrayal they feel, which they certainly felt and expressed in the general election, about the way they were treated by the previous Government, when, despite the massive advantages of income from North sea oil, they did not get a fair deal?
Mr. Field: I was trying to make that point, although I did not do so as effectively as my hon. Friend, in my supplementary answer to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). It is crucial not only that we ensure that pensioners have a stake in the rising prosperity of this country and that we listen carefully to the voices of pensioners, but that we widen the debate so that all of us
realise that most of us will one day be pensioners and that we have an interest in the evolving pension debate which the Government are leading.
Mr. Burns: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer, will he explain the comments that the Secretary of State made last October at the Labour party conference, which led many people to believe that, in government, she would consider raising the linkage of state pension to wages rather than prices? Is he aware that, if that were to happen by only 1 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation, it would cost £300 million in the first year and £4.5 billion by the fifth year?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where that money would come from and whether the Treasury is in agreement--or was it simply a question of seeking to give hints, nods and winks to interest groups which the Government had no intention of fulfilling once they came to power?
Mr. Field:
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. I suggest that, if he wishes to make a constructive contribution to the evolving welfare debate, it would be better if he did not misrepresent what my right hon. Friend said and accepted that parties are bound by their election manifestos. If he has not had a copy of our election manifesto, I shall be happy to send him one.
6. Ms Moran:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's proposals to improve services to those claiming benefit.[4339]
Ms Harman:
We will modernise the social security system to improve services to claimants. We want a system that is speedy, fair and efficient; the system that we have inherited from the previous Government is complex, lengthy and unfair.
Ms Moran:
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that it is very slow and inefficient for people to have to wait on average six months, or up to a year in some instances in my constituency, for an appeal or a decision on appeal? Is not that the direct responsibility of the previous Government? Does she further agree that by simplifying the decision and appeals system, the Government will make a start on modernising the welfare state?
Ms Harman:
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. She said that, once an appeal against benefit refusal has been lodged, it can take up to six months on average for the appeal to be determined. Unfortunately, some cases lodged as much as two years ago are still awaiting a determination of appeal. It is not acceptable that it can take people up to two years to find their way through the 13 different appeals systems to get their appeal determined.
The system treats people unfairly: on the one hand, it offers people the right to appeal but, on the other, it tells many people at the end of a very long process that they had no chance of success anyway. That is not acceptable. We shall modernise the system to ensure a
speedy, fair and efficient service for people who appeal against benefit decisions, and I shall be making further announcements shortly.
Mr. Viggers:
Is the right hon. Lady aware that a constituent of mine recently fainted after standing in a queue for a benefit payment? Is it not possible for the Government to follow the practice of virtually every private sector organisation and arrange a proper queuing system in benefit offices or, better still, treat applicants with respect and provide chairs?
Ms Harman:
In the circumstances described, it is totally unacceptable that a constituent should faint while waiting to be seen at a caller office. The solution will be not only a fair queuing system but speedier service delivery and a speedier response to people who visit Benefits Agency offices. The system for telephoning offices also must be modernised and updated, in line with people's expectations about what a modern service should deliver.
Queueing has ceased to be a feature in the former Soviet Union, and it should not be a feature of our Benefits Agency. We are determined to shorten the time that people must wait for answers to their queries. If possible, we want their queries to be dealt with on the telephone, so that they do not have to queue.
Mr. Pike:
Does my right hon. Friend realise that complexities in the mortgage interest payment system cause many difficulties for people who are eligible for mortgage benefit? The system should be simplified so that Benefits Agency staff can get it right and avoid causing problems for people with mortgages.
Ms Harman:
We certainly want simpler claim forms and a system that is easier for claimants to understand. We also want a system that is understood by staff to be fairer and more efficient. Most often people have problems paying their mortgages and have to visit Benefits Agency offices because they are without work. We should ensure not only that people do not get into problems paying their mortgages but that they are advised and helped back into work. For people of working age, the social security system should not be about a handout but about a hand-up. Most people of working age who have mortgage problems have such problems because they are not in work. Welfare to work is a central part of the Government's strategy.
Mr. Swinney:
As we await the Government's review of Benefits Agency regulations on timetabling and dealing with appeals, will Ministers allocate more resources to solving the immediate crisis, which is causing enormous hardship for people in very vulnerable situations? Those people's lives have been shattered because the Benefits Agency cannot speedily resolve its quagmire of decisions.
Ms Harman:
Before the general election and in our manifesto, we said that we would stick to existing departmental spending totals. However, our priorities are different from those of the previous Government. One of our priorities is to improve service delivery, both at first instance and on appeal. We believe that there is much that we can do within the system to improve services for
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |