---

SOCIAL SECURITY

Minimum Income Guarantee

Mr. Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of pensioners with incomes below the minimum income guarantee who are not entitled to the minimum income guarantee because of savings in excess of the upper capital limit. [108451]

Mr. Bayley [holding answer 4 February 2000]: The last take-up estimates, covering 1997-98, were published in September 1999. Estimates of numbers of pensioners with incomes below the minimum income guarantee who are excluded for reasons of excess capital are not yet available.

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much higher the income of (a) a single pensioner and (b) a pensioner couple not receiving income support would be in the year 2000-01 if the basic retirement pension had been uprated in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2000 in line with average earnings. [117589]

Mr. Rooker: The information is in the table.

While our priority is to target help to those pensioners in greatest need through the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), we have provided significant help to all pensioners. During this Parliament, we will have spent nearly £1.9 billion more on Winter Fuel Payments and the MIG than on earnings uprating the basic State Pension. Clearly, given constraints on resources, if we had uprated the basic pension in line with earnings, we would not have been able to provide the level of help we have, particularly to the poorest pensioners. Also earnings uprating the basic State Pension does not help them as the increase would be offset by a pound-for-pound reduction in the MIG they received. All these aspects need to be taken into account when using figures in the table.

£.p.

		(a)	(b)	((a)-(b))
Pensioner status	Year	Actual rate payable	Rate payable if uprated in line with average earnings	Weekly difference
Single pensioner	1998	64.70	65.00	0.30
	1999	66.75	68.20	1.45
	2000	67.50	71.25	3.75
Pensioner Couple	1998	103.40	103.90	0.50
	1999	106.70	109.00	2.30
	2000	107.90	113.90	6.00

Notes:

1. Average Earnings Index Whole Economy (Non-seasonally adjusted), as published by the Office for National Statistics.

2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating.

Dr. Stoate: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Dartford will benefit from the recent increase in the minimum income guarantee. [118824]

Mr. Bayley: Around 2,000 pensioners in the parliamentary constituency of Dartford are receiving their minimum income guarantee paid through Income Support, and have benefited from the recent increase in benefit rates.

17 Apr 2000 : Column: 399W

SERPS

Mr. Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of (a) 5 to 10 per cent., (b) 10 to 15 per cent., (c) 15 to 20 per cent., (d) 20 to 25 per cent., (e) 25 to 30 per cent., (f) 30 to 35 per cent., (g) 35 to 40 per cent., (h) 40 to 45 per cent., (i) 45 to 50 per cent., (j) 50 to 55 per cent., (k) 55 to 60 per cent. and (l) 60 to 65 per cent. of those currently in SERPS producing satisfactory evidence that they have been misled over surviving spouses' entitlement. [117538]

Mr. Rooker: The cost of any given percentage of people currently in SERPS producing satisfactory evidence that they have been misled over surviving spouses entitlement will depend on which individuals are included and how much SERPS they have accrued.

Fraud (Brentwood)

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the procedures of the Borough of Brentwood District Council in preventing and detecting fraud. [118601]

Angela Eagle: We are aware that Brentwood Borough Council is operating the Royal Mail "do not redirect" scheme, is using the Housing Benefit Matching Service and has a Remote Access Terminal installed. It has also applied to this Department for Electronic Transfer of Data which will be installed during the summer.

The authority exceeded its weekly benefit savings threshold by 82 per cent. in 1998-99 resulting in additional subsidy of around £16,000.

However, the Borough has expressed no interest in implementing the Verification Framework and we have no record that they prosecuted or referred any cases of fraud for prosecution between April 1996 and April 1999.

Housing Benefit (Brentwood)

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the level of co-operation between the Borough of Brentwood District Council and the Benefits Agency in relation to housing benefit; [118600]

(2) how many complaints in the last 12 months the Benefits Agency has made to the Borough of Brentwood District Council about lack of co-operation on housing benefit. [118602]

Angela Eagle: This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Eric Pickles, dated 14 April 2000:

The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking, if he will make a statement on the level of co-operation between the Borough of Brentwood District Council and the Benefits Agency (BA), in relation to housing benefit, and how many complaints in the last 12 months the BA has made to the Borough of Brentwood District Council about lack of co-operation on housing benefit.
The BA and Brentwood Borough Council have a joint Service Level Agreement which covers the service and performance requirements expected of both parties in connection with Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Standards are measured and reviewed as necessary.

17 Apr 2000 : Column: 400W

We have quarterly benefit liaison meetings to discuss any initiatives and issues that arise. Both the Local Authority and BA are satisfied with the level of co-operation.
In the last 12 months there have not been any direct complaints from the BA to Brentwood Council with regard to lack of co-operation on housing benefit.
I hope this is helpful.

Benefits (Crosby)

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people under the age of 65 received an Attendance Allowance in Crosby constituency in each of the years from 1994 to 1999. [118680]

Angela Eagle [holding answer 11 April 2000]: The administration of Attendance Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 14 April 2000:

The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking, how many people under the age of 65 received an Attendance Allowance (AA) in Crosby constituency in each of the years from 1994 to 1999.
Since the introduction of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) on 1st April 1992, persons under the age of 65 have not been able to claim AA. Customers who were under the age of 65 and in receipt of AA had their benefit converted to DLA.
Details of DLA for 1998 and 1999 are set out in the table below. Prior to 1998 figures were based on a 5% sample and the numbers for Crosby constituency are too small to be statistically reliable. Since 1998 the figures are based on a 100% sample.

Year	DLA recipients
1998	2,172
1999	2,158

I hope this is helpful.

Asbestos-related Diseases

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000, Official Report, column 173W, how many CT scans Medical Services has commissioned in the case of asbestos-related diseases in the past three years. [119005]

Mr. Bayley: Medical Services have commissioned no CT scans in the past three years in the case of claims for an Industrial Injuries Scheme Benefit for an asbestos-related disease.

Benefit Review Interviews

Mr. Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Department or its Agencies record whether claimants refuse to be interviewed for area benefit review interviews. [119211]

Mr. Rooker: There are no formal records for the information requested. However, the records that are available show that only a very small number of people refuse to be interviewed.

17 Apr 2000 : Column: 401W

Benefit Payments

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he will put in place to allow benefit recipients without bank accounts to be paid in cash over the counter at post offices once automated credit transfer is introduced. [119707]

Mr. Rooker: The vast majority of benefit recipients, over 80 per cent., already have access to a bank account.

The Post Office is working with banks and the Department to make a range of bank and other simple accounts available to everyone, and to make sure that getting cash from these accounts will be available to customers from local post offices.

However, we recognise that there will be some people who we will be unable to pay by automated credit transfer, and some urgent payments that cannot be made this way. For these, we are considering what alternative simple electronic money transmission system, which could also be accessed at post offices, may be commercially available.

Mr. Lilley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of paying all relevant pensions, currently paid via automated credit transfer four weeks in arrears, on a weekly basis in the year the transition was made. [119422]

Mr. Rooker: There would be no overall increase in benefit expenditure in moving to weekly payments.

However, there could be a one-off cash flow effect, with expenditure up to the value of £555 million ¹ being brought forward to an earlier tax year because of more frequent payments.

The Department would also incur some small additional banking costs as a result of more frequent payments.

¹ This figure assumes that all pensioners and widows, whose pensions are currently paid into a UK bank account, take up the option and that the transition was made in a single year, neither of which may necessarily be the case.

---