| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Housing Benefit
10. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): When he expects to bring forward proposals to reform housing benefit. [79737]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We intend to publish a housing Green Paper later this year that will discuss options to reform housing benefit within the context of housing policy. Any fundamental reform would be a long-term project likely to take a number of years to progress. In the shorter term, we will continue to consider changes that make housing benefit fairer, better administered and more secure and that promote work incentives.
Mr. Prentice: News of the Green Paper is very encouraging, especially in Pendle. At the beginning of the decade, my constituency spent about £1 million on housing benefit and, some nine years later, we are spending £9 million--which is a ninefold increase in less than a decade. I and many of my constituents are concerned about rogue landlords who pick up properties for a song--sometimes paying as little as £3,000 or £4,000. It is not unusual for landlords to achieve a yearly return on their capital investment of about 35 per cent, so huge sums of public money are being tipped into their pockets. I urge my hon. Friend to address that issue urgently and introduce proposals as rapidly as she can for a root and branch reform of the entire system.
Angela Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. He is correct: there are some difficulties. I refer him to a consultation paper on the regulation of houses in multiple occupation that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing published recently. He must also be aware that the reform of housing benefit involves many complex issues and concerns the very roof over people's heads, so we must proceed carefully. The changes that we shall make will be for the better.
Pensions
11. Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): How many responses he received by 31 March to his consultation paper on pensions. [79738]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): We had received more than 550 responses by 31 March, and several more have arrived since. Wide support has been expressed for the objectives set out in the Green Paper and for our approach, which is based on the three interlinked pillars of the minimum income guarantee, the state second pension and the stakeholder pension scheme.
Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister accept that there has been strong representation, not least by Age Concern, about the fact that the Green Paper says nothing about raising the basic pension? Age Concern, on behalf of pensioners, takes the clear view, as do all the pensioners in my constituency who have spoken to me, that at the very least older pensioners must be given a higher basic state pension--we had that debate last month--or all
pensioners should have a higher basic state pension. Is there any point in Age Concern or any pensioners' organisation putting those views to the Government, or are Ministers saying that there will be absolutely no increase in the state pension and that it will be topped up only if pensioners' other income makes it necessary for them to have an additional, means-tested benefit? Will people receive an increase only if they go through the means test?
Mr. Timms: About 170 of the responses that we have received commented on the level of the basic state pension. Our pledge neither to means-test nor to privatise the basic state pension has wide support, but as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, many people would like the state pension to be linked with earnings. Our commitment is to uprate the basic state pension at least in line with prices; we have honoured that commitment, and pensions will continue to increase according to that method.
The cost of increasing pensions in line with earnings would be an additional £750 million every year, and within 10 years it would cost an additional £8 billion a year. That is not economically realistic. Rather than give the impression that the link with earnings might be restored, it is better to be honest with people and instead devise a credible strategy, as we have done, for improving pensioner incomes.
Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs):
With reference to consultation, what advice do the Government give to employers, employees and those providing pension fund schemes on the arrangements to be made in the next two years before the new stakeholder arrangements come on-stream? The Government have demonstrated their moral disapproval of personal pension schemes, even though many of them now offer full transparency. People will progress upwards in the work force, so if they do not want a personal pension, what are they to do in the next two years?
Mr. Timms:
People should be saving in a pension. That is why the Financial Services Authority has issued advice about the terms under which personal pensions should be sold in the next couple of years. Stakeholder schemes will be available from April 2001, and if people then choose to switch into a stakeholder pension, they will suffer no penalty. We welcome that advice. The assurance about what will happen in two years means that it is entirely appropriate for people to start saving in a personal pension scheme now.
14. Mr. Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw):
What arrangements he is making for paying the winter fuel allowance for 1999-2000. [79741]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle):
Next winter, we plan to make all payments before Christmas. That will ensure that, when the winter starts, the money is in pensioners' hands and available when they need it.
Mr. Roy:
I thank the Minister for her reply, which will be welcomed by pensioners during the long, cold winter, particularly in Scotland, where winter lasts longer and is
Angela Eagle:
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right to point out that the fivefold increase in the winter fuel payment is an extension of the universal benefit principle to all pensioners. By the end of this Parliament, that will result in almost £3 billion being spent to ensure that no pensioner has to worry about turning up the heating during spells of cold weather. That increase will make a genuine contribution to the quality of life of all Britain's pensioners.
16. Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
What recent assessment he has made of the availability of benefits for carers. [79744]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley):
Benefits are available for carers who are unable to work full-time because of heavy caring commitments, and for carers on low incomes. Expert benefit advice for individual carers is available at district offices of the Benefits Agency and via telephone helplines. Our proposals for the state second pension will benefit carers who are unable to contribute to a second pension because of their responsibilities. Our proposals for single work-focused gateway interviews will provide information and benefit advice to carers.
Mr. Baker:
On a genuine and serious note, may I tell the Minister that carers in my constituency have contacted me and are very concerned about proposals in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, particularly those relating to the abolition of severe disablement allowance and restrictions on incapacity benefit? They are concerned that carers will be pushed into poverty by having to rely on means-tested benefits. What reassurance can the Minister give the constituents who have contacted me that the Government's proposals are not simply a cost-driven exercise but will be fair to carers?
Mr. Bayley:
The first reassurance that I can give the hon. Gentleman, and hon. Members throughout the House, is that the exercise is not cost-driven. Indeed, expenditure on disability benefits will rise by about £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament.
On carers specifically, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to apply the changes to the contribution conditions for incapacity benefit in such a way that people in receipt of invalid care allowance will not be disadvantaged. If they were eligible for incapacity benefit through national insurance contributions when they started caring, that eligibility will remain throughout their receipt of ICA.
19. Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East):
What assessment he has made of the performance of the new deal for disabled people's innovative schemes. [79747]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley):
We are funding a number of innovative schemes under the new deal for disabled people to test new ways of helping people with disabilities who want to work. Ten schemes are currently in operation, and we announced funding for a further 14 last month. It is too early to assess the effect of the schemes. An independent research organisation has been appointed to evaluate them formally, and preliminary findings will be available towards the end of this year.
Mr. White:
The Minister will be aware that, although the schemes will be welcomed by many people, many disabled people will be cynical because the benefits system operated by the previous Government led to many of them being put on the scrap heap. Many disabled groups are finding that their members' top level disability living allowance is being removed. Will he outline how he intends to deal with the cynicism among disabled people and target people who need those welcome schemes but who, at the moment, may feel that they will not help?
Mr. Bayley:
The purpose of the personal adviser pilots in the new deal for disabled people is to provide advice to disabled people who want to work on the benefit entitlement of seeking a job, which in-work benefits they would receive if they took a job and on their long-term entitlement to out-of-work disability benefits if the post did not work out. Help is also provided with the job search and any training that those people might need to get the job that they seek.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |