To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of income support claimants aged under 60 years are repaying social fund loans by deductions from their benefit payments.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of income support claimants aged under 60 years are repaying social fund loans by deductions from their benefit payments.

At the end of August this year 384,207 social fund loans were being recovered from income support recipients aged under 60, representing 13·3 per cent. of income support recipients in that age group.

Now that the Government have succeeded in their objective of further impoverishing the poor, is not it time that they began to listen to their Social Security Advisory Committee which, in its seventh report, said that in no way was the social fund curing or assisting in alleviating poverty for the very poorest people? Will the Minister give an assurance that he will immediately implement the recommendation that loans for capital items should not have to be repaid, and that he will take steps to ensure that loans that are provided are repaid at a level at which poor people are not driven to go to commercial moneylenders?

I would accept neither that there has been an increase in poverty in this country in the past 10 years, nor that the social fund is not doing an important and sensitive job in meeting need where it needs to be met. Some 2·4 million loans are now being given at a cost of about £334 million and half a million grants at a cost of £131 million. They have been targeted on those who need help most.

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that persons who applied for capital allocations under the single payment scheme year after year are not doing exactly the same for the same items under the present system? Does he recall an occasion when one of my constituents applied for over £600-worth of capital items, which she got, and the following year applied for identical items, which she did not get? What happens now? Can people now get loans for the same items, and is a careful record kept?

We keep careful records on each claimant's patterns of applications for loans. After a year, there might be a renewed need for a particular item, but we seek to counter abuse as actively as possible.

Is the Minister of State aware that people come to my surgery who have been denied a social fund loan, not on the basis that they have no need, but because the Department's calculation is that they could not repay it. The need does not disappear. Those people then have to go to private moneylenders, where the minimum rate at the moment is 75 per cent. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify that?

I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has a number of constituents in that position, as about 1·6 per cent. of cases are turned down on the basis that the claimant is unable to repay the loan. In those circumstances, it would be wrong for us to give a loan to the applicant. Alternative sources of funds are suggested to those claimants and they are offered advice on how to manage their affairs.

Has the Minister had time to study the case that I sent to the Secretary of State, about a young lady in Southend-on-Sea who applied for a social fund loan because she was allocated a council house in place of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and was told that that could not be regarded as a priority within the limited budget? When I pointed out that the young lady had just come out of prison, she was given the grant because apparently that is a priority under the guidance given by the Department. While the Secretary of State is considering that case, will the Minister try to ease bureaucracy in the DSS by putting up a notice in every department saying, "If you have been to prison please advise the staff, because that could be to your financial advantage"?

My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on the particular case that is being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The guidance that is issued by my right hon. Friend is supplemented by guidance on local needs that may exist in a particular area, but the final decision is made by independent social fund officers who can use their discretion and take account of that guidance as they see fit.

How can a person on income support be expected to get by with deductions on social fund repayments when Matthew Parris, a former Tory Member of Parliament, could not get by for one week on income support, even without social fund repayments? Is not it impossibly difficult for the nearly 500,000 poorest families on social fund deductions, not only to repay their social fund loan, but to pay any housing, electricity, gas and water charge arrears and now also poll tax deductions? Have the Government reached the ultimate absurdity of denying loans to the poorest families who need them most because those families are too poor to repay?

If I may say so without referring back to the alleged experience of our previous colleague, 2·4 million loans have been made at a cost of £334 million. It seems better that that money should go interest free to people who need it than that people should be led into the hands of loan sharks, as was mentioned earlier in this exchange.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people in Bradford have had attendance allowance suspended, pending review, over the past year; and how many have had (a) the decision to suspend upheld and (b) their review application upheld and arrears paid.

Attendance allowance is suspended pending a review only if there is reason to suspect that the claimant no longer satisfies the conditions for the benefit. Statistics are not kept on the number of those suspensions, though their numbers are likely to be very small.

Does the Minister accept that it is distressing and worrying for any benefit recipient to have benefit suspended and income cut? Will he give an assurance that his Department is not targeting disabled people in Bradford or elsewhere, because there certainly are suspicions that a cost-cutting exercise is under way and that disabled people are being made the victims of it in an unnecessary and unacceptable way?

That happens rarely, so rarely that we do not collect the statistics. Benefit would be suspended if a claimant returned his order book, if there were a change in his care needs or if a person were in hospital for longer than four weeks or in prison, and therefore was not in need of attendance allowance. Those are the circumstances in which suspension might be considered.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of recipients of attendance allowance and other disability benefits has increased dramatically under this Government in the past 10 years? Can he tell the House what arrangements he proposes to include in the social security Bill in the next Session to ensure that those who apply for benefits have their applications dealt with smoothly and that we reduce the number of appeals?

We shall certainly improve the administration of the new disability allowance, which will subsume the present attendance allowance, and the methods of assessment, with reduced reliance on medical evidence. We shall also substantially lower the benchmark that people need to qualify for the new benefit.

How can the Minister claim that the incidence of attendance allowances being suspended pending a review is sparse when there are no statistics to demonstrate the case one way or the other? Does he accept that there are far too many cases and that it would be fairer if the benefits were continued pending any review that the Department seeks to invoke? People feel harshly treated and must often make great sacrifices and endure hardship as a result of those reviews, most of which result in the back payments being made.

Obviously, we take account of the experiences of our local offices in deciding whether there is a problem in any benefit area. If there appears to be a problem, we move swiftly to tackle it. There is no evidence of such a problem in this instance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers who have taken out personal pensions.

A total of 4·1 million people have so far taken out a personal pension.

I thank my hon. Friend for that satisfactory answer. Will she comment on the Labour party's policy? Having frightened pensioners—

Order. That is a bad habit. In this Session can we stick to the Government's policies at Question Time?

I am sure that it will not be the Government's policy to frighten potential pensioners as it is the policy of the Labour party.

My hon. Friend is right. The Government's policy is to encourage choice in pensions so that people can remain in SERPS, take out a personal pension or belong to an occupational pension scheme. It would not be the Government's intention to

"turn the pensions market on its head."

As the Government do not believe in bucking the market, will the Minister tell the House why she feels that the proposals need to be subsidised from the national insurance fund? Will she tell the House to what extent the national insurance fund has been raided in an attempt to make the scheme a success?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government of which he was a member also introduced incentives for changes in social security policy. He will also know that the major cost of personal pensions is not the 2 per cent. incentive but the cost of rebates, as it would be for occupational pensions. The incentive represents less than 2 per cent. of the total income of the national insurance fund.

If contracting out of the state system has proved so popular, does my hon. Friend have any plans to extend the principle?

I have already said that the Government are in favour of choice in pensions policy and no doubt we shall be looking for ways to extend the principle of choice.

Will the Minister treat us to a rare moment of honesty on this matter—

Oh.

Order. That is a little harsh. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that phrase?

I shall withdraw it. I did say "rare". I was not suggesting that the Minister is constantly dishonest.

Will the Minister admit that this has nothing to do with choice? The Government are trying to shuffle off their responsibility to 4·1 million people, who will find when their pensions are paid, as independent sources have shown, that at least 1 million of them have been badly advised and bribed out of a good scheme that has been running for a long time. Will the Government give us an undertaking that all those who have been misled out of the pension scheme will be told when it is in their best interest financially to return to the national insurance scheme?

The matter was fully rehearsed during the passage of the Social Security Bill this year, so the hon. Gentleman will know that all those marketing personal pensions must belong to the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation or the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation and have to observe a code of conduct about the best advice that has to be given to the customer. The hon. Gentleman and his party do not like the success of the extension of choice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are now in receipt of family credit.

The number of families receiving family credit has risen in each month during 1990. The latest available information is for the end of July, by which stage the caseload had reached 323,000. That is the highest ever level since the scheme began.

Is it correct that the Government are carrying out a successful campaign to publicise family credit and does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's commitment to the family is well demonstrated by the fact that this year nearly £5,500 million is being paid in social security benefits to low-income families? Is it true that when the Labour party was in power, it cut benefits to families?

Family credit certainly represents an important part of the Government's policy for the family. Interestingly, on average the amounts payable in family credit come to £30 a week but over 15 per cent. of family credit recipients receive £50 or more. The advertising campaign increased not only applications but the level of awareness of that worthwhile benefit.

Is the Minister concerned about people who take part-time work and thereby become ineligible for family credit, who would be better off being out of work and claiming benefit and income support? Is not it time that the Government did something to help them?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the cases of certain ancillary workers, of which I am aware. The chief adjudication officer has issued further guidance for those cases and we are considering its effects carefully. It was clearly never our intention that families should find themselves unable to get income support or family credit.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that every family who is receiving family credit is also receiving child allowance? Will she confirm that income support, whether it be family credit, supplementary benefit or other systems, has always taken the child allowance into account? Does she agree that instead of referring to child benefit, we should refer to child allowance, so that we can agree with our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said on 17 March 1981 that the tax and benefits system should always take account of people who have children and that it is a matter not of income support but of child allowance?

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, which was as interesting as one has come to expect from him. All families with children receive child benefit for each child. As for the name of the benefit, I quite like child benefit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of income support claimants aged under 60 years are repaying social fund loans by deductions from their benefit payments.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing).

May I refer the Minister to his reply and ask that he listens to his own words? Does he agree that it is outrageous for a Minister to admit that there are people who are getting such a low income from the Government that they cannot afford to repay a loan and that therefore the Government refuse them a loan? Is not it outrageous for him to say that they will get not help but only advice from the Government? Is not he aware that he is talking about the poorest people of our society who want help, not advice from him and his Department?

As I said—perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my reply—only a tiny percentage of people are refused help on the basis that they are unable to repay a loan. Some people may be refused loans but be given a community care grant instead.

It has been alleged that the Department is about to issue instructions to the officers who administer the social fund that they must keep within budget next year on pain of disciplinary action. Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny any such possibility being considered by the Department, and does he agree that the only condition that should be applied to social fund applications is whether the applicant needs help from the social fund?

It is the duty of local office managers so to manage their budgets that they stay within them over the year. Last year, we gave extra help to local offices that were under stress, which showed the continuing flexibility of the social fund.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on his proposals to ensure that fathers pay maintenance.

I have received correspondence on this subject from one of the major lone-parent organisations, members of the public and other interested parties. We shall shortly publish full details of our proposals in a White Paper.

Any plans that my right hon. Friend has to ensure that fathers recognise their duties to children, whom they helped bring into the word, will be most welcome. Does he have any plans to point out to single mothers—mothers who have never been married—the enormous pressures that will be put on them by having children while they are unmarried? Any Member of Parliament hears from teachers, pressure groups, social workers and so on how enormously difficult it is for single mothers.

My hon. Friend's very helpful suggestions range rather wider than my specific remit for social security, but, indeed, our policies on child maintenance range beyond social security. I am concerned that we should have a clear-cut, more workable system to ensure that where maintenance can properly be expected it is paid. That is in the interests of lone parents, whatever the cause of the lone parenthood, and, above all, in the interests of children.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread support for the idea that fathers should take responsibility for their families but that there is also widespread fear that the proposals represent a backdoor way of cutting maintenance for single mothers? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no single mother will be worse off as a result of the proposals and of whatever legislation may arise from them than she would otherwise have been?

I think that the hon. Lady referred to cutting maintenance. Clearly, the aim of the proposals as a whole is to increase the amount of maintenance that is paid. But perhaps the hon. Lady simply made a verbal slip.

I cannot attempt today to anticipate all the details of the White Paper that we shall publish, but our aim is to improve the position of lone parents and, not least, to provide them with a better platform on the basis of which they can work if they wish.

Can my right hon. Friend provide the House with figures to show the proportion of absent parents who are currently providing maintenance?

Yes. I can do that in round figures. Maintenance is paid in about one third of all the cases in which it might be expected. For lone parents on income support, maintenance is paid in slightly less than a quarter of cases. Both figures are too low and one of our aims will be to increase them.

Everyone is in favour of fathers maintaining their children. Is the Secretary of State interested only in saving the Treasury money or does he agree with the Labour party that lone parents and their children should be helped to escape from a life of poverty and given a chance to be independent and therefore better off?

We all know that, under the present Government, increasing numbers of lone parents have been forced to live on benefits—by cuts in child benefit and by the removal of the right to claim the costs of child care when working part time. We need encouragement to fathers to pay maintenance, but surely we also need an increase in child benefit and a chance for lone parents to have access to child care and training so that they can escape from poverty and so that they and their children may be better off.

The hon. Lady may be mildly surprised to hear me say that somewhere, buried in her question, was a general proposition—about seeking to encourage independence and the like—with which I would certainly agree, although I accept that there may turn out to be detailed differences of opinion between the hon. Lady and me about precisely how those objectives are to be achieved. I hope that I shall carry her with me on this, however: the Government have already taken a number of steps to improve the working of the system, even within the existing arrangements—including, most notably, a substantial increase in the earnings disregard for lone parents in respect of housing benefit, which has taken place this very month.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that any proposals that come before the House will take a considerable time to be implemented because of the pressure of parliamentary business? In the meantime, my constituents and those of other hon. Members will suffer severely because their ex-husbands refuse to pay them maintenance and can use delaying tactics in the court—for example, in the provision of the relevant and necessary proof of earnings and so on—and so evade giving any funding for their former families. Is there anything that my right hon. Friend and his Department can do in the meantime to help those ladies who are in genuine financial difficulties as a result of that practice?

I do not think that we can solve these problems entirely without the proposals that we shall be bringing forward, which will obviously take a little time. But there are things that we can do and, indeed, that we are doing. The Social Security Act 1990, which was passed during the summer and of which the relevant provisions are just coming into effect, gives us power to transfer DSS maintenance orders to a claimant who is going off income support and gives the DSS power to enforce a claimant's own maintenance order if that would be helpful. Both those provisions are directed at solving precisely the problems to which my hon. Friend referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to investigate the problems of full-time carers.

A report based on research commissioned by the Department into the effectiveness of invalid care allowance as an income-maintenance benefit is expected to be published in the next few months. Our concern to improve the support available to carers, is reflected in a range of Government policies, including the extension of invalid care allowance to married women and the introduction earlier this month of a carers premium in the income-related benefits.

Does the Minister recognise that without the help of about 1 million full-time carers, the hospitals and social services systems in this country would have collapsed long ago and that, for the most part, all that work goes unrewarded and unrecognised? Does he also recognise that the invalid care allowance is a very limited contribution and the extension to married women was wrung out of the Government by the European Court? Will the Minister now make the extension of a care allowance system to all carers an absolute priority? As a basic minimum, will he offer all full-time carers national insurance credits so that they are not disadvantaged for pensions and unemployment benefit when their period of full-time caring ceases?

The hon. Gentleman may seek to minimise what has been done, but when this Government took office, the number of people receiving invalid care allowance was less than 10,000. It is now well over 100,000 and that is making a substantial contribution. That, together with the other improvements that we have made, including the increased earnings disregard for those on invalid care allowance, which was introduced last April, and the carers premium, which is being introduced this month, show our real concern to help those about whom the hon. Gentleman is also rightly concerned.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House about the change of provision for those requiring full-time care who are suffering from terminal diseases such as cancer? Will he also pay credit to organisations like the Macmillan nurses, which enable those suffferers to have dignity in their own homes at that stressful time and which very much welcome the changes the Department is making to ensure that help arrives in time and is worth while?

I should very much like to join in that tribute and I met a Macmillan nurse in my constituency on Saturday. The contribution made to the support of carers, which goes well beyond the social security system, is an important and encouraging feature of what is happening in our health and social services.

With regard to my hon. Friend's first point, I am delighted that we have been able to extend attendance allowance, without the old time limit, to the terminally ill. My hon. Friend might like to know that we expect 6,000 successful awards of invalid care allowance—in other words, a further increase in recipients of that benefit—to follow the extension of attendance allowance.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will do his level best to ensure that applications for that allowance are assessed as quickly as possible? At my surgeries I have found that informal carers have had to wait far too long for the assessment of their applications. Will the Minister look again at the too-harsh criteria by which such applications are assessed by his officials?

I am always looking for ways to improve that and other parts of the social security system. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can give him an unequivocal yes. There is no doubt that delays in processing ICA, partly because of the rapid expansion of the benefit, became longer than we wished and we will continue to do everything possible to reduce them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of standard rate taxpayers who would be affected by the abolition of the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions.

If the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions were removed, about 3·3 million people would pay more contributions, of whom about 2·1 million would be standard rate taxpayers and about another 500,000 self-employed people, of whom about 200,000 would be standard rate taxpayers, would pay more contributions if the upper profits limit were also removed.

I am grateful for that valuable information, which my hon. Friends and I will certainly wish to use in the coming months. Does my right hon. Friend recall a previous occasion when rash and extravagant promises were made to sections of the electorate as bribes by the Labour party and then, once the Labour party had obtained power, those electors paid for those promises in higher inflation and taxation? Does my right hon. Friend believe that the British people will be taken in yet again?

I certainly do not believe that the British people will be taken in by a number of the things that were said in Blackpool 10 days ago and on several other occasions by the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). It is relevant that the figures that I have just given the House clearly show how spurious was the attempt to pretend that basic rate taxpayers would not face extra bills as a result of Labour party policy.

As the abolition of the upper earnings limit is intended to finance a desperately needed pension increase, is the Secretary of State ashamed that the 2 million poorest pensioners, who have no income but the state retirement pension or income support, have had a zero increase in their pension in real terms over the past 11 years? Is the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister proud that, since 1979, all tax cuts to the rich have been paid for as a result of the Tory Government's breaking of the uprating link with earnings? Given that the Government have purloined £22 billion owing to pensioners over the past 11 years, is not it about time that the Government gave priority to the poorest pensioners rather than to the richest taxpayers?

The hon. Gentleman has not only a rare talent for hyperbole but a very short memory indeed. It is just a year, almost to the day, since the present Government put £200 million extra public money into increasing premiums in the income support system for older and more disabled pensioners. That is a clear indication of our concern to improve their position.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about spending on disabled people since 1979.

Social security help for long-term sick and disabled people has increased in real terms by more than £4 billion since 1978–79 to a total of £8·3 billion in 1989–90. The proposals we outlined in "The Way Ahead", along with the changes announced in October 1989, will add some £300 million by 1993–94 and will give extra help to an estimated 850,000 people.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be churlish of the House not to acknowledge the improvements that he and his colleagues have made? Does he accept also that we have a long way to go before any of us can feel really satisfied that we are doing right by our disabled brethren and sisters? Will my right hon. Friend therefore acknowledge that many hon. Members, including myself for as long as I am in this House, will come back, like Oliver Twist, asking for more for the disabled until we feel that justice is really done?

I certainly agree that there are continuing needs for disabled people, despite the dramatic improvements that have been made over the past 10 years. They are not restricted simply to benefits. We also need a more co-ordinated approach to services for disabled people, improved access to our public buildings, and further efforts to bring technology to the service of people with disabilities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the latest trend in pensioners' real incomes since 1979.

I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the latest available information shows that pensioners' average total net incomes grew by over 31 per cent. in real terms in the Government's first eight years of office.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that it is very good news for pensioners? They will now know that, over a long period, the Government have taken seriously the standard of living of pensioners. Does my hon. Friend agree also that people who are just above benefit level are nevertheless living on small amounts of money and that, therefore, it is right that the Government should concentrate help on them and not make promises such as those made by Labour Members which they know that they cannot keep?

My hon. Friend is right when he says that there is a need to target help for pensioners, as for other groups. Pensioners with incomes from savings have seen their incomes increase by 130 per cent. Occupational pension income has also gone up, by 77 per cent. in that time. However, the Government are conscious that not all pensioners have been able to benefit from those increases in income, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just drawn the attention of the House to the £200 million package last year which helped 2·6 million pensioners.

May we have an assurance that in next year's uprating of social security benefits and pensions the calculation will be based on this year's September year-on-year retail prices index? May we have an unconditional assurance on that matter from the Dispatch Box?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the current historical method of calculating upratings ensures that the benefits are protected against price increases over a measured period. In years when inflation falls after the new rates are set pensioners gain—that will be the case this year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment has been made of the effect on financial incentives to work of changes over the past five years in social security benefit payments.

One of the major aims of our policies in social security has been to maintain and, where possible, improve financial incentives to work, and we are constantly monitoring the effects of policy changes in this area.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a result of our reforms, help is being targeted to where it is most needed and that, in particular, low-paid and wage-earning families cannot be worse off now because they work?

I agree. We have reformed the income-related benefits and restructured national insurance. We have also improved earnings disregards. By those means we have virtually eliminated the worst effects of the poverty trap and considerably alleviated the unemployment trap.