| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Single Parents
3. Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in respect of support for single parents undertaking courses of higher education. [124927]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Officials in the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment meet regularly to discuss issues affecting all students. Ministers also meet regularly--as you will be glad to hear, Madam Speaker--and discuss the support of single-parent students.
Mr. Baker: I am pleased to hear that. However, may I draw the Minister's attention to a loophole that goes against the Government's policy, which I support, of trying whenever possible to get people off benefit and into work? Even during holiday periods, single-parent students who are at university cannot claim income support because they are deemed to be covered by DFEE regulations. There is, therefore, effectively a disincentive for single parents to take university courses. Many of my
constituents are giving up university courses and going on income support because they cannot afford to stay on at university. Surely there is a case for giving income support to such people, at least in the holiday period. If we do not do so, the rules will undermine the Government's own policy.
Angela Eagle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be glad to know that, from September, there will be provision from access funds to help those who are in higher education to meet the costs of child care. That extra help will be disregarded for income-related benefit purposes.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): In replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), the Minister of State said that it was facile to talk about the price of petrol. What does the hon. Lady say to my single parent constituents who have to drive 20 or 25 miles to their place of further education and pay £4 for a gallon of petrol?
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that this question relates to that at all.
Pensioners
4. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): What progress has been made in encouraging pensioners to claim benefits to which they are entitled. [124928]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I ask the hon. Gentleman to take account of the two dates that I shall cite, so there is no misunderstanding.
Since the launch of the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign was announced at the end of March, about 72,000 calls have been received at the tele-claim centre. A television advertising campaign to support the mailshots began on 30 May, and in the first two weeks of this month we sent letters to about 417,000 pensioners who have been identified as having a potential entitlement to income support. As at 15 June, the latest date for which I have information, we had received applications from about 67,000 pensioners.
Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister turn his attention to future take-up? Does he estimate that, for a 75-year-old pensioner, it will be easier to take up a free television licence or £100 cash?
Mr. Rooker: The television licence is not really a matter of take-up, because we have passed legislation to enable my Department to give the BBC the names and addresses of people over 75. That is how we are dealing with that. As the House knows, we have identified about 2 million pensioners from our records who we believe may be entitled to income support and are not claiming it. We do not know everything about everybody, which is a good thing in many ways, but the fact is that, within those 2 million, we suspect that there are about 500,000 entitled pensioners, and we will mail them personally--by name--to invite them to make a claim.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead): Given that my right hon. Friend has been in the House longer than I have, may
I ask him to be as charitable as possible, to dredge his mind and to cite one move that the Tories made in government to undertake a take-up campaign to inform poorer pensioners of their rights?
Mr. Rooker: My right hon. Friend may want to apply for an Adjournment debate on that. The fact is that this is the first time that there has ever been a Government take-up campaign on this scale. Local authorities have done it, as have many hon. Members, but this is a specific, targeted campaign directed at 2 million people, by name, in addition to the television advertisements encouraging others to claim. The campaign is costing a modest amount, about £15 million, but it will get more money quickly to the poorest pensioners who, for various reasons that we all understand, are being missed out. It is long overdue.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): Many pensioners find it difficult to understand the complex world of social security benefits, and their only point of contact is the postmaster or postmistress. Following today's announcement by the Post Office that it has made a loss of £265 million, will the Minister give my pensioners a guarantee that, if they so wish, they will still in future have that point of access, with their post office remaining open? When will the Government stop their attacks on pensioners and their assaults on the Post Office?
Mr. Rooker: In the middle of all that, there was a fair and justifiable point. The fact is that members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, have made it clear on more than one occasion, from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, that after the implementation of the policy announcement--after 2005--it will still be possible for pensioners and other beneficiaries to access their money via the Post Office network.
One of the implications behind the hon. Gentleman's question, especially concerning the rural post offices, is that we should ban people in rural areas from having access to their benefits via their bank account. People are voting with their feet every week and deciding to have their benefit paid via the banking network. If we do nothing to manage the situation, we will lose the Post Office network without understanding why. Because we do not want to do that, we have a policy to ensure that it will not happen.
Appeal Procedure
5. Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble): What steps he is taking to improve the social security appeal procedure. [124929]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We have introduced a new system to streamline and modernise appeals that has already led to a faster and more efficient service. The appeals service has already made significant improvements to clear backlogs and reduce waiting times. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set challenging targets to improve the service still further.
Mr. Borrow: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, but I draw to her attention the fact that constituents of mine, and--I am sure--of other hon. Members,
find access to the tribunal system difficult, either because of physical disabilities, although many tribunal rooms have disabled access, or because of the stress of making a case in person in a benefit appeal. Some people are reluctant to go through that stress, and I ask my hon. Friend to ask her officials to consider steps to assist both those groups of potential beneficiaries.
Angela Eagle: I am happy to do so. My hon. Friend will be aware that in exceptional circumstances domiciliary visits can be made if an individual would find it difficult to get to the place where the tribunal normally meets. Hearings have been held in people's front rooms, for example. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the recent figures which demonstrated that the 70,000 backlog of 18-month-old cases, with which the new Appeals Service started, is now down to only 3,500 cases. The process used to take seven months, on average, to clear an appeal, but it now takes only 14 weeks. That is a significant improvement, and much congratulation is due to those who work in the Appeals Service.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): Does the Minister think that the new appeals system deals with the charge made by the Select Committee on Social Security only last month about the disturbing culture of delays in the social security appeal system? Will she recognise that delays are caused in the early stages of appeals by the appeal system, and that is the direct responsibility of the Department? Will she accept that criticism?
Angela Eagle: We knew when we came into government, when it took seven months on average to hear any appeal, that we had inherited a system that was silting up and was not working. The changes in the Social Security Act 1998, which streamlined the system, were designed to deal with some of those difficulties. The results so far show, as I have just announced, that the backlog has plummeted from 70,000 to 3,500 and the average seven-month waiting time is now down to an average of 14 weeks. Significant improvements have been made, but we are never complacent and will continue to do what we can to improve the accessibility of the system and its effectiveness.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent record in reducing the backlog in the appeals system. May I urge her to consider the number of applications for incapacity benefit that go to appeal and how many should have been successful before reaching that stage? The present procedure is causing pain and anguish to many people, who find it extremely difficult.
Angela Eagle: Disability benefits are among the most difficult to administer and to apply for, because they are discretionary and based on individual circumstances. We keep a watchful eye on what we might do to improve them, but they are complex benefits to administer. However, I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |