| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lone Parents
7. Mr. David Heath: What estimate she has made of the number of new claims by lone parents for income support in financial years (a) 1997-98 and (b) 1998-99. [14636]
The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): The Department estimates that there will be 350,000 awards in both years.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that reply. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Minister for Public Health, who claimed that many poor women smoke because they feel that their lives are hopeless? Does he believe that the many lone parents who are unable to find work will feel more or less hopeless when their benefits are cut?
Mr. Field: I am sure that all of them will feel more hopeful because this Government have a positive, proactive policy that is helping them back to work--unlike the previous regime.
Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which to reduce the number of lone parents who are forced to claim income support is to provide available and affordable child care? What plans does he have to improve that provision as part of the new deal?
Mr. Field: The Government are developing a national child care strategy, which will be implemented during the life of this Parliament. Each of the single parents coming forward for interviews is seeking that information and being given it.
Mr. Burns: Can I press the Minister to confirm that, notwithstanding what the Secretary of State said, of the 8,600 letters that went out in the pilot scheme, 75 per cent.--about 6,600--of the people who received them did not bother to reply; and that, of the 1,600 people who went to see a personal adviser, only 433 have gone into a job, which is about 5 per cent. of all those who were contacted? I am particularly pleased that the Minister is here. Does he agree with Professor Lawrence Mead that there has to be a ground of compulsion for the new deal for lone
parents to work? Does the Minister agree that, if there is no compulsion, it will be a failure? Given that the jobseeker's allowance and welfare to work for young people rests on compulsion, are the Government preparing a U-turn to bring in compulsion for the new deal for lone parents? That is a question that the Secretary of State studiously refused to answer.
Mr. Field: The answer to the first of a series of questions is that the hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Of the people who were invited to attend, three quarters responded and, of those who responded, a quarter are already in work. I thought that the Opposition would support that. My views vis-a-vis Lawrence Mead are made very plain in the document that the hon. Gentleman is holding.
Benefits Advice
8. Mr. MacShane: What steps she is taking to make benefit information and advice available (a) by telephone and (b) electronically. [14637]
Ms Harman: Local offices are trying to improve their telephone services. We have advice lines for family credit, for pensioners and for sick and disabled people and their carers. We want to modernise the social security system, so we shall explore all possible ways to use new information technology to improve the speed, accuracy and accessibility of benefit advice.
Mr. MacShane: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that the Conservative party lost the election of 1 May not simply because it consists of a bunch of sleazebags but because the Conservative Government were the architects of the dependency culture, which has left too many citizens in Britain without a sense of right and control over their own lives? If she tries to telephone some of the plethora of numbers that she has inherited, she will find that she will need a Ph.D in code breaking to understand them or get through. Will she consider setting up one 0800 freeline to cover all social security inquiries, and also consider a form of smartcard so that citizens, who have as much right in times of trouble to help from other citizens through the state benefit systems, have some control over their lives? We should break the dependency culture, which is the most wicked of all the wicked inheritances from the Conservative party.
Ms Harman: Yes, I shall consider having a single benefit advice line. We need to modernise the delivery of services, and that means the right mix between telephone advice and face-to-face advice, and also advice that people can access without being face to face--through kiosks and computer software. One of the things that we shall also look at is how we can deliver information and benefits using new technology so that people do not have to go from pillar to post giving the same information five different times and then having to work out how all the different answers fit together. Modernisation of the delivery of social security is long overdue.
Mr. Baldry: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most cost-effective ways of getting information to claimants is through citizens advice bureaux,
where volunteers give advice in a very professional way? However, very often citizens advice bureaux have to struggle year on year for funds, both core funding and funds to run themselves. Is it not in the interests of central Government to provide further assistance to citizens advice bureaux?
Ms Harman: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Department of Social Security does not give grants to voluntary organisations. However, we are working in partnership with citizens advice bureaux on a pioneering project on how we can use new technology to share information between the Department and voluntary organisations. It is designed to ensure that those organisations that give advice to claimants have the most up-to-date information and can settle those claimants' queries. We believe that, whether such claimants turn up at a benefits office, citizens advice bureau or other advice centre, they are entitled to receive full, accurate advice promptly.
Mrs. Dunwoody: We would all welcome the modernisation of the forms that people are required to fill in and we would welcome any kind of modernisation that means that people can get accurate information quickly. However, will my right hon. Friend remember that many of our constituents still have the old-fashioned idea that speaking face to face to a human being is infinitely preferable even to the best organised kiosk with a computer in it? It will be a long time before the people whom my right hon. Friend is talking about will be happy if they do not receive personal service.
Ms Harman: We want to ensure that everybody receives personal service, but the question is whether it is the right sort of service. We know that some people want face-to-face advice and information, and we are considering that option. Some people want to be able to talk to someone direct. Other people do not want to go into the benefits office or wait there to talk directly to someone because they would rather sort it out on the telephone. A third category wants neither to talk to anyone on the phone nor to see anyone face to face, but to access the system. The key to modernisation is a personalised service and flexibility. It is not a matter of considering the people about whom my hon. Friend or I am talking, but providing the right range of services so that people can receive the services that they want in order to get the advice that they need in a manner with which they feel most comfortable.
Mr. Gorrie: Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), will the Secretary of State pay some attention to the variable quality of the personal advice given at different offices? I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same experience as me when constituents have complained that they have been to various offices several times and only on the fourth or fifth visit to a particular one have they been offered a constructive suggestion by someone which makes all the difference. Can we have some system whereby staff are encouraged to take a constructive attitude towards trying to help people? I am sure that many of them do so, but some do not.
Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point which relates to a number of different issues.
First, it is important that an understanding is established throughout the Benefits Agency that people are entitled to the highest quality of service and politeness, whatever the circumstances of their case. That is absolutely essential. Secondly, people should not get different information from different people. Some people may be on five benefits and if they have to go to five different places to get the necessary information, they are lost by the time they get to the fifth one and they cannot work out how it all fits together. Thirdly, it is important to check the quality of advice and to ensure that there is a proper complaints system. The previous Government established some sort of charter for people who used the benefit advice services, but I warrant that no hon. Member has heard of it because no emphasis was given either to ensure that people knew about it or to enforce it. The need to back good-quality advice with the right training is high on our agenda and we expect to see results shortly.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |