Skip to main content

Social Security

Volume 177: debated on Monday 15 October 1990

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Community Care

17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of applications for community care grants were refused in 1988–89, 1989–90 and the first half of 1990–91.

The proportion of community care grants refused in 1988–89 was 48 per cent., in 1989–90 it was 54 per cent. and in the period April to August 1990 it was 55 per cent.

I am sure that the House will agree that those are disgusting statistics. Is the Minister aware that those shameful statistics represent people in need who, under the old system, would have been entitled to something? What preparations will be made and what money will be put into the system to meet the needs of the people who will be caught up in the imminent recession?

Only 4·4 per cent. of applications for community care grants were turned down because they were of insufficient priority—the substantial majority were turned down because they did not meet the basic eligibility test for the community care grant system. The statistics that I read out should be seen against the background of an increase of 66 per cent. for applications for community care grants and an increase of 50 per cent. in awards.

Is not it a fact that the grants have to be examined very closely indeed because the Government are the custodians of taxpayers' money, and taxpayers do not have a bottomless pit of money? Therefore, the Government's policy of directing resources and targeting them closely on where they are needed is right and preserves the taxpayers' rights.

Of course we must be careful and prudent with the taxpayers' money. We also have to be careful to meet need where it exists. Some 500,000 community care grants have been given and effectively targeted since the introduction of the scheme.

Child Benefit

19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy annually to uprate child benefit in line with inflation.

I will continue to carry out my statutory duty by reviewing the rate of child benefit annually and considering its future level in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, which I could scarcely describe as helpful. He knows that this question comes up annually and will not go away, because of the serious way in which inflation has eroded the real value of child benefit over many years. That benefit is well directed to help families, and has almost a 100 per cent. take-up. Given the current rate of inflation, will the Secretary of State accept that if the Government are to be true to their claim to be the party that supports the family, we need something much more positive than the answer that he has just given?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows full well the reason for the answer that I gave, precisely because it is this particular time of year. Having been pursued around Bournemouth last week at intervals by people inviting me to speculate on this self-same subject—and, finally, having drawn from one of our most distinguished television political commentators the remark, "It sounds as if even your 'no comment' is off the record"—I do not propose to be drawn further this afternoon.

Disabled People

20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers of people who will benefit from the measures outlined in "The Way Ahead".

We estimate that some 850,000 people will benefit from the proposals set out in "The Way Ahead" and the interim measures that we announced in October 1989.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that extra number of people, and the extra £300 million to be spent on implementing the proposals—on top of the fact that we have doubled expenditure in real terms on the long-term sick and disabled since 1978–79—demonstrate clearly that this Government are the caring Government, and that those who would say otherwise have failed when they have had the chance to prove it?

Certainly I agree. One of the most interesting statistics—using money at constant prices—shows that the last Labour Government managed to increase spending on the long-term sick and disabled by some £220 million a year; we have increased it by £370 million.