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-NINTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 344
SIXTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1999-2000
House of Commons
Monday 7 February 2000
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--
Housing Benefit
1. Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): If he will make a statement on his plans to reform the housing benefit system. [107185]
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are committed to reform housing benefit and will publish a Green Paper this year. In the meantime, we are making improvements to the way in which it is administered.
Mr. Stunell: The Secretary of State must be aware of the concern at the Government's delay in producing their proposals. Does he accept that the housing benefit system is seen as being in disrepute? In Stockport, there is a particularly grave problem with private tenants who are the victims of oppression by the Greater Manchesterrent officer service. What assurance can the right
hon. Gentleman give that, when and if we get the new system, there will be an end to the economic cleansing of private tenants from my constituency?
Mr. Darling: I am aware of the problems in Stockport which have resulted in assessments being made by the rent officers. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and the three other Members of Parliament who represent Stockport are going to see the local rent officers to discuss the matter, so I do not propose to say anything further on that matter.
The 400 or so tenants who have had their housing benefit reduced are covered by the exceptional hardship payments which are available. The amount paid out by the hon. Gentleman's local authority is actually less than the amount that the Government have provided for, so those people are well covered.
The housing Green Paper will be published this year and will cover far more than housing benefit, as financial support for housing is only one part of the problem. We will address a number of the problems that the hon. Gentleman and others have raised and, at that stage, we will have a full and proper debate.
Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead):
When reforming the housing benefit system, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that some pensioners have what might be called offspring-engendered poverty, in that they do not get the contribution from their grown-up so-called children that they might otherwise get? That creates difficulties for some of them, who must meet substantial housing costs out of very low incomes.
Mr. Darling:
My hon. Friend is referring to the non-dependant deductions, which have been a feature of housing benefit for many years. If we did not take into account sums that someone living in a house could reasonably pay towards their upkeep, everybody else would have to subsidise that house. That is not right, as a
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar):
The Secretary of State was not very forthcoming about when the Green Paper is due--he was making similar promises this time last year. Will he confirm that his reforms have now run into the sand with a dispute between his and other Departments? Will he confirm that the biggest obstacle facing him is the £13 billion investment by housing associations, which borrowed that money on the basis of the level of benefit payments? Will any scheme compensate housing associations for that? Is he still serious about reforming housing benefit, or will the next Budget tinker with the poverty trap through the working families tax credit, which will leave 3 million out of4.5 million housing benefit claimants unaffected?
Mr. Darling:
The hon. Gentleman is wrong on just about every point that he raises. The housing Green Paper will be published this year and will cover not just housing benefit, but other housing matters. He might want to reflect that, during the 18 years that they were in power, the Conservative Government did nothing about many of the problems with housing benefit.
2. Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
If he will make a statement on the Government's policies towards pensioners. [107187]
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling):
Our objective is to make sure that retirement is a time to look forward to. We are doing more to help today's pensioners. We are reforming pension provision for the future to make sure that people retire with decent pensions. As a result of our policies, older and poorer pensioners are £500 a year better off than they would have been but for the change of Government.
Mr. Waterson:
Why should pensioners look forward to retirement as a result of the Government's policies? The Government have ripped off £5 billion from pension funds and abolished the married couples allowance, tax relief on private medical care, widows bereavement benefit and many other benefits affecting older people. On top of that, they are proposing to introduce a system in which there will be two classes of pensioner. There will be a disincentive to save at one end of the scale, and real unfairness for those who have saved during their working lives at the other.
Mr. Darling:
The hon. Gentleman will recall that we now have the lowest rates of corporation tax that this country has seen, allowing companies to decide whether they want to reinvest their money or pay it out in dividends. He will no doubt have seen reports suggesting that many pension funds are beginning to benefit not just from our advance corporation tax changes, but because of the benign economic conditions that have been a feature of this Government.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the bereavement benefit changes. The status quo could not be sustained, because it was discriminatory: a man who lost his wife
and was left with young children to bring up was not being helped. We have now arranged for help to go to either men or women when they lose their spouses.
I think that the hon. Gentleman's key objection is to the minimum income guarantee. I see that he is nodding vigorously. One and a half million pensioners are now getting more help, thanks to the Government: people who were not able to save enough of a pension during their working life, often because they were employed on very low wages or were in and out of employment.
It is clear that we believe that we should help Britain's poorest pensioners--the ones who lost out in the past 20 years--and it is equally clear that the Tories would take that money away; unless, of course, another U-turn is about to be announced at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch):
I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says about the minimum income guarantee, but is he genuinely happy with the 75p increase in the state pension?
Mr. Darling:
I have explained on many occasions that the Government's pensions policy is geared towards providing the most help to the poorest pensioners who lost out in the past 20 years. Over those years, the richest pensioners did very well compared with the others, whereas the poorest lost out very badly. If we gave an across- the-board increase to all pensioners, those who were better off would not notice the amount and those at the lower end of the income scale would get no increase whatever because they would lose it pound for pound in benefit.
That is why we are absolutely right to target most of our efforts on helping the poorest pensioners; but I remind my hon. Friend that the winter fuel payment, increased to £100, goes to all pensioners; free television licences, from this autumn, go to all pensioners over 75; and we have taken out of tax 200,000 pensioners who used to pay tax on their savings.
Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon):
I agree with the Secretary of State. I agree with his statement in the House 12 months ago that pensioners are rightly angry when they save for a lifetime and then cannot get means-tested benefits. I agree with him in his statement of 12 months ago, when he said:
Mr. Darling:
I have explained to the hon. Gentleman on countless occasions that the Government said in the Green Paper that the capital limits needed to be considered. I am glad that he agrees with everything that I said previously, because I notice that the Liberal Democrats' manifesto says that it is their policy that the basic state pension should be increased in line with prices and that there should be extra earnings-linked help for the poorest pensioners, and that is precisely what we are doing.
Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central):
Given what my right hon. Friend has just said about the minimum income guarantee, and rightly so, when does he expect to be in a
Mr. Darling:
My hon. Friend asks a very good question, the answer to which is very soon indeed. I shall make an announcement in the not-too-distant future setting out how we intend to ensure that those pensioners who qualify for the minimum income guarantee get it.
Mr. David Willetts (Havant):
The trouble is that, whatever else the minimum income guarantee may be, it is not a guarantee of a minimum income to pensioners. A pensioner with savings of more than £8,000 in a year is not entitled to any help, even though her income could well be way below the supposed minimum income guarantee level. It is a matter not only of pensioners not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled, but of the old income support rules meaning that pensioners with incomes way below the minimum income guarantee level are simply not entitled to receive it. The Secretary of State should either change the name of his policy so that it is not so misleading, or change the policy to do something to help pensioners with modest savings.
Mr. Darling:
The hon. Gentleman's argument would have more force if he had done something about the capital limits when his party was in power, because they remained unchanged for many, many years. We have said that we will consider that, and we will. His policy is not to give more help to those receiving the minimum income guarantee but to take that guarantee away, so 1.5 million pensioners would lose money, not gain it. People should remember that when they listen to what the Conservatives have to say on pensions.
"That reform is long overdue."--[Official Report, 28 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 486.]
Given that it was long overdue 12 months ago, why has he done absolutely nothing on capital limits since then?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |