| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Higgins: Obviously I shall leave it to the noble Baroness to reply, but I wish to raise one point. What the Minister has said sounds extremely helpful—and, subject to looking at the small print, we welcome it—but does this give us an opportunity to standardise the claim forms used by local authorities and, indeed, the claim form used for the state pension credit? It is absurd that we should have this multiplicity of forms in different local authorities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are trying do this and we have issued model forms which we are encouraging local authorities to adopt. I cannot say how far we have reached in that regard, but I shall find out and let the noble Lord know. He is right: the more transparent, simple and similar are the arrangements, the better. We started off with every local authority having its own forms. We are now seeking to establish model forms. Let me see how far that has advanced.
Baroness Barker: I thank the noble Baroness for her extremely helpful reply. I am not sure how to characterise my emotions at this precise moment, so perhaps I should reserve my position until I have had time to read Hansard. If I said that I was mildly chuffed, would that be parliamentary language?
Joking apart, I have tried to suggest to Members of the Committee that anything that can be done to simplify housing benefit is extremely welcome. The noble Baroness is right to head me off at the pass from having an extensive debate on housing benefit, but it is a source of untold misery for thousands of people. I very much welcome the general thrust of the Minister's remarks. The five-year periods for major benefits that will have a profound effect on people's lives are to be welcomed. I shall go away and no doubt I shall be even more pleased when I read the Minister's remarks in Hansard in detail. I thank her very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 not moved.]
Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 66:
- Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: I find myself in the same position as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, the other night in being uncertain of what is about to happen.
The amendment refers to benefit checks, which is in the same broad area that we have been discussing with regard to up-take and people's ability to make claims. There was a degree of scepticism on day one of our Committee proceedings about the target for up-take of this new benefit. The Government have been extremely ambitious in setting themselves a target of 100 per cent take-up by year two. Past experience of take-up of income support and MIG shows that that figure is highly ambitious.
Members of the Committee have talked extensively about the barriers to claiming, not least of which is the complexity of the forms. The Minister spoke at some length about efforts to simplify such forms. She referred earlier to 70 per cent of pensioners who choose to make inquiries by telephone, which takes us into the workings of the new Pension Service. I declare an interest in that I am speaking for the other 30 per cent who will not make claims in that way.
On such complex proposals it is ambitious to assume that people will feel that they have the wherewithal to begin the process of making a claim. These matters are extremely complex. There are, and will continue to be, pensioners with whom it will not be appropriate to deal by telephone. It will be better for them to have a benefit check in their own homes or in other ways. In saying that, I recognise that one of the main aims behind the proposals is to stop making people do something that they hate, which is spending hours and hours in really—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Grotty.
Baroness Barker: The noble Baroness says, "grotty", but I would say downright unpleasant housing benefit offices. I welcome the measure, but some people for reasons of frailty—both physical and mental—language, and other difficulties, need to be dealt with in other ways.
I wish to raise another matter, which although it is not specific to the Bill, is related to it. I refer to the position of people in residential and nursing care homes, especially those who are self-funded in such homes, who are likely to be spending their savings at a fast rate. I raised this subject at Second Reading. By definition, they are likely to be fairly frail people.
There is a raft of important issues, not least of which is the effect of pension credit on care charges, and so on. The circumstances of people in residential care are the most likely to have changed. There are also those who are not comfortable using the telephone. Perhaps that will change over time. I remember the noble Baroness saying the other day that the pension credit is very much for pensioners of the future and that current pensioners "are where they are". That may be, but circumstances change, and a system that endeavours to be fair, as this one does, should be flexible enough to cope.
It may sound mad to many people, but the absence of a local office to attend, which is likely under the proposals, may cause pensioners great concern. For all those reasons, and because I hope that the Government's aim of 100 per cent is not unrealistic, I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: This is an important amendment and refers, to a large extent, to take-up, although later amendments also refer to that issue. I shall defer some of my remarks until we reach that point.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, outlines a number of ways in which additional information might be provided to pensioners, such as by telephone, home visits, and so on, but the front end of the issue is the claims form. We have discussed claims forms in previous debates on social security. One of the notable issues was that the size of the present form had been greatly reduced, but the explanatory memorandum had increased proportionately, so that the total number of pages is almost exactly the same.
At all events, we are now engaged in a vast extension of means testing, and about 5 million people who were not previously in the scheme are now likely to come into it. As has already been said, a number of these people are somewhat above the previous benefits level and have never been involved with the scheme at all, so will be joining it for the first time. It is extremely important that the form should be sensible. Perhaps the Minister will let us have a copy—I assume that it has already been drafted—to give us an idea of how it compares with the previous, difficult ones.
Given the huge increase in the number of people who will be claiming, will staff numbers increase proportionately? Otherwise, it is unlikely that the provision mentioned in the amendments will be carried out adequately. The latest report on income-related benefits estimates of take-up in 1999-2000 show that take-up is worse, if anything. The report shows that last year 500,000 eligible pensioners were not receiving income support and that this year the figure has risen. For housing benefit, the number has increased from 150,000 to 210,000. For council tax benefit, the figure has increased from just over 1 million to almost 1,250,000. The situation is becoming worse. Indeed, according to that report, the level of take-up is not improving. We have a real problem in this respect. The Government tend to announce that extra sums of money will be devoted to this or that particular benefit,
I stand open to be corrected, but I believe it is right to say that it is not the Government's target of 100 per cent: that 100 per cent is the assumption which has been made in assessing the eventual cost. We know that the costs will not be anywhere near 100 per cent. Therefore, the impression given by mention of these vast amounts of money should be somewhat modified to allow for take-up. Having said that, we must all hope that the actual arrangements made for take-up of the state pension credit will be a great deal better than what we fear could be the outcome. No doubt the Minister will wish to comment on my remarks.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is entirely right to say that the 100 per cent figure is not a target. It would be brilliant if that were to happen, but we all know that there is incomplete take-up on all benefits. It is a statement about the cost designed to ensure that that money is available.
However, I take issue with the noble Lord on a particular phrase that he keeps using. Each time I try to come back at him and each time he refuses to move towards my views—I believe that that is the right way to put it. He speaks about a "vast extension of means testing". It simply will not do to use that phrase when talking about pension credit. We are, for the first time, encouraging those pensioners who have made some effort to help themselves to derive some benefit by keeping the bulk of those modest, small occupational pensions, as opposed to seeing them wiped out by MIG. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that it is precisely because the level of income support, the old MIG, is sufficiently generous between retirement pension and the MIG level—that is, £77 and £100—that people with small pensions who are trapped between those two figures see no gain from it. They will now see a reward in decency and fairness for their own activity. Therefore, to talk about a "vast extension of means testing" is a Stalinist version of Orwellianism, which I hope the noble Lord will not repeat in future.
"BENEFIT CHECK
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the pension service to offer a benefit check to all people who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit.
(2) In this Act "a benefit check" means information about possible entitlement to state pension credit to be provided by—
(a) telephone;
(b) personal visit to the pension service;
(c) home visits; and
(d) other ways as deemed appropriate."
5 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page