THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE SECOND SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND [WHICH OPENED 7 MAY 1997]
FORTY-SEVENTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 323
SECOND VOLUME OF SESSION 1998-99
House of Commons
Monday 11 January 1999
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
SOCIAL SECURITY
The Secretary of State was asked--
Welfare Reform
1. Mr. Paul Clark (Gillingham): What recent representations he has received over his proposals for welfare reform. [63182]
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We have received numerous representations on our recent proposals for reform towards our central aim of work for those who can and security for those who cannot.
Mr. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. I draw his attention to the issue of security in retirement years. My constituents' main concern is that they have sufficient pension rights for a secure retirement. Thirty thousand of my constituents in Gillingham and the Medway towns are aged over 65 and living on means-tested benefits to help to supplement their income.
What proposals does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that future pensioners will not have to rely on means-tested benefits for security in their later years?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right: one of the scandals that we inherited is that many pensioners are living on such low incomes that they depend on income support and other benefits. Part of the rationale behind my proposals for reforming pensions, which I announced to the House on 15 December last year, is to ensure that people who work throughout their life will make a worthwhile saving towards their pension. The result of my proposals--particularly for those who earn £9,000 a year or less, for whom we have doubled the rate at which their pension will accrue--is that people who work throughout their life will retire on an income sufficient to raise them above benefit levels, a laudable aim which should have been achieved years ago.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, under his proposals for a minimum pension guarantee, those who suffer will be people who prudently save, because they will receive nothing from welfare, whereas those who spend everything will receive the maximum amount from the state? Does he think that it is fair for that to continue?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. If he read the pension proposals that I made at the end of last year, he would know that the Government are considering how we can improve that situation. Before Conservative Members get too excited, I point out that, for 20 to 30 years, people who have a small amount of money in the bank or a comparatively small occupational pension have discovered that they are not eligible to receive the help to which others are entitled.
We have made it clear that we are prepared to consider measures to ensure that the minimum pension guarantee will be available to more people. We shall do so by examining what disregards might be appropriate for capital and income. The hon. Gentleman is right to
mention the problem. It has existed for many years, but the Government are considering it and are prepared to tackle it.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead):
My question is about the representations that my right hon. Friend has received--and more than 1,000 people have responded to the various Green Papers. Does he recall that his colleagues have given answers stating that those representations generally support the Government's objectives for welfare reform? Is he aware that many of those submissions also make substantial points of criticism? If we are to have a proper debate, should not the Government respond properly and publish a Green Paper on those criticisms and worries and on how they intend to counter them?
Mr. Darling:
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Government should respond to criticism--they will--but I am wary of undertaking to publish Green Paper after Green Paper. The Government are anxious to ensure that we make progress and implement the reforms that people want. The consultation period for the pensions Green Paper, which is a matter very close to my right hon. Friend, finishes at the end of March. The Government will consider the representations that we receive and decide whether we need to publish a White Paper or whether we can proceed to legislation.
On disability and bereavement benefits, I have made it clear that the Government want to legislate in this Session. The consultation periods on those benefits have just ended or will end this week. In each case, the Government will respond to all suggestions and criticisms and make it clear what representations we can and cannot accept, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the consultation is genuine and helps to inform Government decisions.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire):
On 15 December, the Secretary of State said in his statement on pensions that, under the new Labour Government, Britain's pensioners were at least £140 a year better off. How is that increase made up?
Mr. Darling:
I was explaining that, as a result of the Government reducing VAT on fuel, introducing winter fuel payments--which are now being made--and making changes to the fuel levy, pensioners are better off by £140 a year. The Government made a commitment to current and future pensioners, and we are fulfilling that commitment.
2. Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East):
What plans he has for the training made available to lone parents. [63183]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle):
The new deal for lone parents is the first attempt that any Government have made to help lone parents to join the labour market. We recognise that training can play a key part, especially for those who have never been in work or who have been away from the labour market for a long time. That is why lone parents have immediate access
Dr. Iddon:
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. We have had joined-up thinking and joined-up talking, but the new deal executive board in Bolton would like joined-up action. By that, I mean that if we are to encourage lone parents to take advantage of the training opportunities, child care facilities need to be in place sooner rather than later. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Angela Eagle:
My hon. Friend is right, but he must also recognise that, when one is starting from a standing position, it takes time to set up the national child care strategy, valued at £455 million, which will be coming on stream. Lone parents are already taking up the opportunities that the new deal is offering.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
At the last Social Security Question Time, the Secretary of State said that there would be an element of compulsion in the scheme. I subsequently had some correspondence from Baroness Hollis, who said that there will be no compulsion. If the scheme is to work, there must be an element of compulsion. Are the Government saying one thing to this House and something else to the other place?
Angela Eagle:
No, I assure the hon. Lady that we certainly are not saying one thing to another place and something else to this Chamber. I think that she is mixing up the new deal for lone parents, which I emphasise is not compulsory, with policy work on the formation of the single gateway. As the hon. Lady and the House will know, pilot schemes will be established in July this year to set up a single gateway into the benefits system, and under those schemes an interview before one applies for benefits will be compulsory.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar):
Will the hon. Lady therefore tell us what the sanctions will be in respect of the compulsory element? Will there be a withdrawal of benefits, a withdrawal of benefits for a time, or a stiff note from the Secretary of State? Is The Sunday Times accurate in reporting that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment are keen that the compulsory element should not only apply to the initial interview, but extend to the subsequent interviews?
Angela Eagle:
A Bill will be put before the House, the details of which can be considered, especially in Committee. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that attendance at an interview will be a condition for receiving benefit in the single gateway pilot areas.
3. Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
If he will make a statement on the processes by which an individual is randomly selected for targeted review by the Benefits Agency. [63184]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle):
Targeted reviews are made on claims to income support and income-based
Mr. Heath:
I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. A constituent who is grievously ill and living in very difficult circumstances has been checked in respect of various benefits five times a year since 1993. I fully accept the need continually to review people in receipt of benefits where there are reasonable grounds for suspicion of abuse, but can it be right that an individual is randomly selected or targeted with such frequency when no adverse findings have been made?
Angela Eagle:
I think that I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I certainly do not wish to discuss it across the Floor of the House. The best thing would be for the hon. Gentleman to contact me so that we can discuss the case in detail. It is highly unusual for someone to be checked so many times every year for that number of years. That is not meant to happen. There is meant to be no more than one check a year for each benefit received. Targeted reviews are intended to check incorrect applications of income support; the all-work test would apply to another benefit and so on, down the benefits system. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's constituent has fallen foul of some of those tests. If the hon. Gentleman contacts me, we can discuss the matter in detail in a more private place.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
Can the Minister confirm that the Benefits Agency security investigation service currently has enough money to discharge its duties? Will she comment on whether it is likely to achieve its targets this year?
Angela Eagle:
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are doing a lot of work to put in place a comprehensive new framework to ensure that fraud is minimised, and that we are well aware of the importance of that framework. I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we believe that all the fraud investigation work, part of which he mentioned in his question, is properly resourced.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green):
The Minister, in answering that question, should bear in mind the National Audit Office report last week, which said that, basically, the Government have made no impact on benefit fraud. More important, in answering the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Minister did not say whether the Benefits Agency security investigation service was properly resourced and would achieve its targets. Will she answer that question now?
Angela Eagle:
The targets have been set and we hope that the service will achieve them; otherwise, they would not have been set. However, I am certainly not going to bandy about speculation as to what will happen in future. We are confident that the service will be able to meet those targets. I might add that we take the National Audit Office report very seriously indeed, but the hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that it involves the year
Mr. Duncan Smith:
The Minister will bear it in mind that the Government's response to that report was to say that things can only get better. Let me put that previous question another way: will the Minister now guarantee that the Benefits Agency security investigation service will have enough money to achieve the targets set this financial year?
Angela Eagle:
What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that we are resourcing fraud and all the many and comprehensive strategies--[Hon. Members: "Resourcing fraud?"] We are adequately resourcing the fraud prevention strategies which we are now putting in place. We expect targets to be met. For example, just before Christmas we announced an extra £100 million for the verification project, which will enable all local authorities to do far more extensive checking on housing benefit and other benefit applications than ever before. The hon. Gentleman should wait and see what happens when we have been in government, so that we can get away from the inherited Tory legacy and start talking--[Hon. Members: "You are in government."] We are in government, yes; but Conservative Members who pose about fraud need to reflect on the fact that the NAO report is a year in arrears, so that it covers some time when the Tories were in power.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |