| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
War Disablement Pensions
10. Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): If he will make a statement on his plans for war disablementpensions. [73047]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I would like to pay tribute to all those members of the armed forces who have been disabled or whose partners have been bereaved as a result of their service. It is only because of their courage and sacrifice that Members of this House have the democratic liberty to stand for election, and freedom of speech when we get here. We will ensure that the war pensions scheme remains available to them and to future generations of service personnel.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Just before the election, the then Leader of the Opposition described the Conservative Government's policy on disablement pensions for those suffering from deafness as shabby and mean-minded. We now learn from a press release--issued eight days after this question was tabled--that the present Government have no plans to change that policy in respect of deafness on medical grounds. Is that because the Government, too, now regard themselves as shabby and mean-minded, or is it a vindication of the policy of the previous Government? Is it not truly shabby and mean-minded to raise false hopes among war veterans a few months before an election, and then to take two years to come to grips with the facts, during which time many of those veterans--including some constituents of mine--have been waiting for their appeals to be heard?
Mr. Bayley: When in opposition, we pledged to undertake a review of the changes introduced by the Conservatives to the war pensions scheme. That review took place immediately after the election, and was timely.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green): And?
Mr. Bayley: I can tell the Opposition spokesman that that review came up with two conclusions. First, that the deafness attributable to war service and the deafness later in life attributable to ageing was no more than additive. Secondly, it was decided that a further review would take place within a year. The further review was delivered to the Department 10 days ago, and we made its results available to the House last Tuesday.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to the sacrifice made during the war by many
people who fought for democracy and freedom in Europe. Does he recognise that many of those people, for various reasons, failed to make early claims to get the pensions to which they were entitled? Is he aware that the Royal British Legion and many other organisations are fighting for those people, who are getting older? Many veterans and their widows die before their cases are heard. Will he do everything possible to expedite these cases to ensure that people get the payments to which they are entitled as speedily as possible?
Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There has been a serious backlog in appeals for war pensions. On 31 March 1997, there were 9,619 appeals outstanding. By April last year, we had managed to reduce that to just over 5,000. At that stage, we introduced a number of additional measures to speed up the hearing of war pensions appeals. As of 28 February 1999--the date on which the latest figure was available--the total was 2,917. We recognise that, although much lower than the figure that we inherited, that is still too many. The War Pensions Agency has commissioned Ernst and Young to undertake a review of the overall decision-making and appeals process, and we will announce the outcome when the review is completed.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): I am sure that all hon. Members greatly respect those who have been disabled as a result of service in the armed forces. Is the Minister aware that many people--including, for example, members of the British Legion--feel aggrieved because their pensions are at nowhere near the levels paid in other European countries? Is a review being conducted of the level of pensions?
Mr. Bayley: The payments under our war pensions scheme are considerably more generous than those in other parts of our social security system. For instance, a single man who is severely disabled and is in the war pensions scheme will receive just over £400 a week, which is substantially more than would be paid under the industrial injuries arrangements, and substantially more--more than twice as much--than what would be paid in basic non-income-related state benefits. We believe that the scheme is generous and that its generosity must be maintained, because those who are injured as a result of service to our country should be generously rewarded.
Benefit Integrity Project
12. Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester): If he will make a statement on the savings achieved as a result of the benefit integrity project. [73049]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The most recent estimate of benefit savings from the benefit integrity project is £8 million for 1997-98 and £30 million for 1998-99. A further estimate of the savings will be calculated following the cessation of the scheme at the end of March.
Mr. Oaten: Does the Minister expect the replacement system for BIP to result in more or less savings?
Mr. Bayley: We are not setting out on the scheme simply to make savings. We want to introduce a fairer system that will allow people on disability living allowance to have their award increased when their mobility or care needs increase, as well as allowing decreases when needs decrease. The benefit integrity project, which we inherited from our predecessors, was unfair because, in effect, it allowed only reductions. Our scheme will allow appropriate adjustments up or down.
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead): As the Minister has just admitted, the benefit integrity project achieved relatively little savings and caused untold anxiety and hardship for many disabled people. [Hon. Members: "Who started it?"] The scheme was operated for nearly two years by the Labour Government, regardless of all the complaints from hon. Members of all parties asking the Government to suspend it. Will the Minister confirm that the replacement scheme, the periodic review system, will lead to more reviews, affecting more disabled people; that the decision-making process will be the same as for the benefit integrity project; and that, if the new review process also leads to anxiety and hardship among disabled people, he will stop it, regardless of the saving?
Mr. Bayley: I find it quite extraordinary that the hon. Lady should make such a broadside attack on a change to the benefits system that her party introduced. We acknowledge that the system was flawed, and that is why we have changed it. The scheme saved £30 million in 1998-99, which she described as relatively little savings. That is in stark contrast to statements from other Conservative Front Benchers about the need to get the level of payments of all benefits right, which is what we intend to do.
When we introduce the new system, which we are developing in consultation with the voluntary bodies, we will do so slowly and carefully, and ensure that it beds down well. If the Conservatives had developed their scheme, the benefit integrity project, in consultation with the voluntary bodies representing disabled people, we might not have had so many problems with it.
Mr. Syd Rapson (Portsmouth, North):
May I congratulate the Benefits Agency on its sting operation over the weekend in Portsmouth, in which it targeted people returning from abroad who claim disability benefits but who had full sets of tools in their possession? They are now being investigated for fraud. Does my hon. Friend agree that every pound taken through fraud is stealing from the people who need it most?
Mr. Bayley:
My hon. Friend could not be more right, and it is disgraceful that people make false claims for benefits. It is good that he should congratulate the Benefits Agency on its successful work to ensure that benefits are paid to those entitled to them, and it shows that the agency is doing its job.
13. Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye):
What he is doing to improve the living standards of the poorest disabled people. [73050]
Mr. Hugh Bayley):
Our proposals for a new disability income guarantee, together with measures in the Welfare Reform Bill, will provide more help for disabled adults and children who most need it, to enable them to live independently and with dignity.
Mr. Foster:
Does my hon. Friend agree that some people will never be able to work, because of the nature of their disability? In view of that, does he also agree that the minimum income guarantee should be updated regularly and will he undertake to do that?
Mr. Bayley:
Yes. The Government's policy is work for those who are able to work and security through the benefits system for those who are unable to work. We recognise that work will never be an option for many people on disability benefits and we must ensure that the poorest of those get more support, which is what the minimum income guarantee seeks to achieve. At current prices, when it is introduced it will add £5.75 a week to the basic disability premium and £8.30 a week for couples.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
Will penalties be imposed on those disabled people who fail to turn up for interview? Will they lose their benefits, and if so, for how long?
Mr. Bayley:
The proposals for attending a single gateway interview are before the House as part of the Welfare Reform Bill and they will be discussed in Committee. It is the Government's view that it should be a requirement for disabled people, as for others entering the single gateway, to attend an interview. Claimants are already required to do certain things before they are entitled to their money--for example, to fill in the application forms appropriately--and we believe that it makes sense for them to attend an interview. However, for disabled people, there will be no requirement to seek work or take a job if that is not appropriate given their condition.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |