| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Capital Thresholds
9. Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): What plans he has to adjust capital thresholds for social security benefits. [115871]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We have delivered on the pledge in our pensions Green Paper better to reward savers with low incomes. From next April we will increase the capital limits for pensioners to £6,000 and £12,000.
Mr. Heath: I welcome the Budget announcement, but is there not a case in logic and in justice for automatic uprating across all benefits where a capital limit applies? If it were necessary to disparage the actions of the previous Government--a view which I share--in not increasing limits for the poorest pensioners, why was it necessary to wait for this Budget for an increase to be put in place, and why will that increase not apply for yet another year?
Mr. Bayley: I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman that this year his party voted against all the
social security upratings, including those for pensioners. In answer to his specific question, I do not think that automatic upratings would be a good idea. I welcome strongly the fact that half a million pensioners who missed out in the past on the minimum income guarantee will become eligible for it as a result of our decision to raise capital limits.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead): I welcome the Government's announcement to raise capital limits. It is welcomed on both sides of the House and by the country as a whole. However, does my hon. Friend accept that even with the changes that have been announced there will be many pensioners who have saved and other pensioners who have small occupational pensions who will not be eligible for the minimum income guarantee? Would it not be possible to change the rules for qualifying for MIG so that the criterion is not whether an individual qualifies for income support but whether his pensionable income is below the minimum income guarantee, when it would be brought up to that level?
Mr. Bayley: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the longer term, through the pension credit, we shall be considering this issue.
Mr. Bayley: Now, or in April next year, we shall be dramatically improving the situation for half a million pensioners. That is something for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have called. It is something that we said we would consider in our pensions Green Paper, and we have done so, and it is something which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer acted on in his Budget.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): May I ask a supplementary question to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? I remind the Minister that recently the right hon. Gentleman said:
- As more and more people in work on low wages realise the futility of saving when every penny is taken from the Minimum Income Guarantee which is gained by people with little or no savings, fewer and fewer people on low income will save.
Mr. Bayley: I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman that his party left the capital limits unaltered for a 10-year period, and we are doubling them. The Government's approach is to target additional resources on those pensioners who need help most--the poorest pensioners. That is what we are doing through the minimum income guarantee. We realised that there was a problem for pensioners with small savings, and that problem has been addressed by the change announced by the Chancellor.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): May I tell my hon. Friend how welcome the increase has been to some of my constituents in Hastings and Rye? However, a problem has arisen. A lady who wrote in last week, and who qualifies, received a form headed "income support".
She said that that was nothing to do with her. May I ask my hon. Friend to change the name to supplementary pension or something other than income support? His campaign to change the system is great, but there must be a change of terminology.
Mr. Bayley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. We are, of course, bound by statute, which refers to income support, but it is important to get the message across to pensioners that the minimum income guarantee is an entitlement. It is not charity; it has been paid for by their own and their spouses' national insurance contributions throughout their life. We will, as my hon. Friend knows, shortly be taking forward the take-up campaign with television advertising. I can assure him that the minimum income guarantee will get a plug in that advertising; we want to get it into everyday currency. We want to get pensioners talking about the minimum income guarantee, and claiming it as well.
Benefit Fraud
10. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): What assessment he has made of the impact of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 regarding surveillance on his measures to combat benefit fraud. [115872]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Department is working with the Home Office on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which is currently before the House. That will give greater assurance that my Department's surveillance activities comply with the Act.
Mr. Robathan: We hear a lot about joined-up government, but the Human Rights Act 1998 is another classic example of disjointed government. Two weeks ago, my office was told by a Benefits Agency official that the agency could no longer keep people under surveillance without their permission. I have checked the Benefits Agency's code of practice. The official was not quite right; I do not blame her--she was confused, as are many people. The code of practice states that officers must get written authorisation for surveillance operations, even in public places. Does the Minister agree that that is hampering the fraud investigations of the Benefits Agency? It is creating more paperwork, hampering the police and Customs too, and wasting their time. Does he further agree that the Human Rights Act will help only the criminals, whom we all want to see unable to defraud the Benefits Agency or rob the taxpayer?
Mr. Rooker: I have not heard it argued by the Opposition that we should unincorporate the European convention on human rights from our legislation.
Mr. Robathan: We voted against it.
Mr. Rooker: We have not heard an argument for a repeal--[Interruption.] That is a fair point. The legislation will be important. If the Opposition are intent on committing themselves to repealing it, they should say so.
The hon. Gentleman's first point is valid, and misunderstandings do arise. Most of the observations carried out by officers of my Department take place in public places. They require authorisation from their superiors.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok):
If my right hon. Friend is experiencing difficulty with the Human Rights Act, may I urge him to ensure that instead of investigations being suspended, they are channelled into other areas? In particular, forensic accountants should be employed to look into landlord fraud. The Human Rights Act would have no impact on that activity, and the Department could continue the pursuit of fraud, bringing many of the big criminals to justice instead of chasing small fry.
Mr. Rooker:
We are chasing small fry and big fry, including collusive employers and collusive landlords.
Mr. David Willetts (Havant):
Let us see whether the Minister of State can defend his manifesto a little better this time. It states:
Mr. Rooker:
The benefits fraud inspectorate will inspect the 30 authorities that spend most on housing benefit in this country. The top 30 authorities in this country spend 30 per cent. of the £12 billion of housing benefit on checking their systems and finding out whether they are secure. Another 40 authorities will subsequently be inspected. The reports are published so that we can learn from good practice.
We will start with a clampdown on Housing Benefit fraud, estimated to cost £2 billion a year.
Is he aware that the Audit Commission has shown that detected housing benefit fraud was £95 million in 1998-99? That is one twentieth of the figure that Labour undertook to tackle. It is not a very good start, is it? What does the Minister of State intend to do to deliver on his manifesto promise, or is this something else that he will do only to some extent?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |