To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to make mortgage guarantees by his Department acceptable to building societies and financial institutions.

The income support arrangements in respect of mortgage interest depend on individual circumstances and do not therefore constitute a generalised guarantee. From next month, changes are being made in the operation of the arrangements with the aim of making them more effective in preventing the build-up of arrears where income support is in payment.

Will the Secretary of State instruct his officials to see whether they can help constituents living in Hanover square in Bradford, who sold their homes for £1 to the British Heritage Housing Trust and are now angry that they cannot afford to buy their homes back at prices up to £51,000? The building societies are unwilling to accept guarantees given by the Department a nd by Bradford council because the former owners are pensioners, unemployed people and people en low incomes. Will he ensure that urgent action is taken to enable my constituents to buy back their homes and does he understand that any scheme that he introduces which relies on cosmetics and sticking plaster will not be adequate compensation for those many people who are fearful of losing their homes for ever?

I understand that there has been correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and Bradford West office about a particular case which must be one of those to which he adverted in his supplementary question. It has been fully explained to the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible to give advance assurances about particular payments when the payment of income support depends on an adjudication officer's decision at the time the claim is made. I think that that is fairly well understood. Normally the arrangements work well in terms of the general letter which is given to building societies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be any change to help with the repossession problem, it would be humane if it were made before Christmas? Does he further agree that it would help if housing benefit were paid directly to the lender and that that would make matters much easier for his Department in dealing with other benefits?

My hon. Friend may be aware that, in addition to the measure on which I commented in my original answer, there have been discussions with representatives of the Council of Mortgage Lenders and some of my right hon. Friends to see whether further action can sensibly be taken to help with the repossession problem. Those discussions have been constructive and are continuing.

Will the Secretary of State recall for the House for how many years Opposition Members have been asking him to make mortgage payments direct to building societies? How many hundreds of thousands of people might now not be homeless if he had followed that advice? Why is it that sense enters the Government's head only when an election approaches?

That is an uncharacteristically overheated question from an hon. Member who, rightly, has a reputation for the balanced way in which he puts things. He well knows that arrangements have been in place for a long time enabling direct payments to be put into force when arrears occur. Those arrangements have undoubtedly prevented many repossessions. At the moment we are seeking to improve the working of those arrangements and that has been widely acknowledged and welcomed by the building societies.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the banks and building societies and rightly discusses with them the possibility of increasing direct payments of income support in respect of interest payments, will he emphasise that the most serious threat to the housing market and to the liquidity of the banks and building societies would be too many forced sales at prices that are too low? That in turn would lead to even more repossessions and he should tell the banks and building societies to be far more responsible about foreclosing on people's property.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders as a body, and its members, would recognise the points that my hon. Friend makes. It is on that basis that the constructive discussions to which I referred are taking place between many of the lenders and Government representatives.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there has been widespread concern for some time about the scale of repossessions? Did he say in answer to a supplementary question that only an improvement to the existing mechanism is being considered? Would I be right in thinking that that would exclude new and more fundamental ways of trying to deal with a problem that is spiralling wildly out of control?

The hon. Gentleman has drawn the wrong conclusion about an earlier answer, which I think was clear. We announced some time ago improved arrangements, as I believe them to be—we are already putting them in place and they will take effect from the end of the month—to make direct payments of income support where arrears occur. Another matter that is under discussion with the Council of Mortgage Lenders is whether a further extension of automatic direct payments could contribute to dealing with the problem.

In any future discussions, will my right hon. Friend include building societies, banks and insurance companies, as in many instances a mortgage may be backed by an insurance policy instead of the mortgage being arranged on a repayment basis?

Yes, the talks embrace representatives of those concerned with that part of the business.

Will the Secretary of State note that the Prime Minister, when a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security, set in train the tidal wave of repossessions when he pushed a regulation through the House, five years ago to this very day, which disqualified a newly unemployed person from receiving half his DSS mortgage interest repayments for the first 16 weeks? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that on that occasion the Prime Minister said:

"There is no reason"—

that is, for eviction—

"and it will not happen."—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1129.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman at least apologise to the 100,000 families who have been evicted this year, especially as the Prime Minister's folly was in direct defiance of the building societies' advice at the time? Will he admit that the Prime Minister's action has caused untold misery? Will he repeal immediately the iniquitous Major disqualification rule?

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents the position. The arrangements to which he referred were put in place after discussions with the Building Societies Association, during which it made it clear that a mortgagor would not repossess on the basis that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, as well as on the basis that where interest was rolled up in cases in which more than 16 weeks were involved, the Department would meet the additional interest charged on the extra payments arising. Those were balanced arrangements and in my view they have worked well. In reasonably expressing concern about repossessions, the hon. Gentleman should at least do so on a fair and straightforward basis.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families will gain from the three upratings of child benefit that will occur in the 12 months to April 1992.

The answer is 6·8 million families.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that 40 per cent. of people who gained from the upratings would not receive a single penny—perhaps I should say a single ecu—if they lived in socialist France?

I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that the structure of our child benefit scheme ensures that the first child receives benefit, unlike the position under the scheme in France. He may be interested to know that several European countries have extra conditions on entitlement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Perhaps it is, but at least it gets the facts out and that is something certainly lacking on the Opposition Benches.

Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain have means tests. In Belgium, Italy and Portugal, there are links to insurance status. I hope that those facts impress the House.

To the issue of mortgages and pensioners, we now add child benefit—another part of the Government's real social charter. Is not the Minister thoroughly ashamed of his record on child benefit? The Government are trying to make good what they put wrong during the previous 10 years, but second and subsequent children still receive £2·05 a week less in real terms than they would have received if the Government had maintained child benefit at 1987 levels. Millions of pounds have been taken from mothers and children. Is not the Minister thoroughly ashamed of himself?

I say very quietly to the hon. Gentleman that we need no lessons on that subject, given the record of the previous Labour Government, who reduced benefits to families by 7 per cent. in real terms whereas we have increased them by 29 per cent. During the period when child benefit was not uprated, we did not stop helping families; we gave £600 million in real terms to low-income families. In the 12 months to April 1992, child benefit will increase three times and other benefits will be uprated. That is a record of which we can be proud.

My hon. Friend deserves congratulations on the Government's child benefit record over the past couple of years. Does he agree that the policy of family support extends to family credit? Will he contrast the 300,000 people who are receiving family credit with the impact of a minimum wage policy, which would have a devastating effect on many families and, of course, on single people?

My hon. Friend adverts to an interesting statistical coincidence. Well in excess of 2 million successful claims have been made for family credit whereas, according to some estimates, a minimum wage would put 2 million people out of work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the reorganisation of his Department at its Cumbernauld office; and if he will make a statement.

With the formation of the Benefits Agency, local offices were combined to create more effective management units. In the case of Cumbernauld, the former local offices at Glasgow Springburn and Cumbernauld were brought together.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware of the great concern among the public and the caring agencies about the decision to move senior management from Cumbernauld to Springburn? Is she aware of the widespread belief that Cumbernauld as a community has lost out on important benefits such as community care grants and budgeting loans? Will the hon. Lady therefore again consider reorganisation in the office in my constituency and whether it would be more appropriate for senior management to be located in Cumbernauld, to look after the needs of the community of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth properly?

The people of Cumbernauld have no reason to fear that they are getting less of a service than they were getting before. None of the core facilities or the facilities directed towards the general public have been moved to Springburn; the finance and personnel section is the only one to have moved.

Community care grants and provision under the social fund are worked out on a district basis. Nevertheless, the particular needs of client groups are taken into account when working them out. Recently, there has been a substantial increase.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have an occupational pension (a) now and (b) in 1979.

The latest figures available show that, in 1988, 51 per cent. of pensioners received income from occupational pensions compared with 41 per cent. in 1979.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that such schemes give pensioners greater financial independence, but low inflation and low taxation are needed if they are to be totally effective and pensioners can get that only from a Conservative Government?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend and the history of what happened under the previous Labour Government bears that out.

Will the Secretary of State consider those pensioners who do not have occupational pensions or whose pensions are so low that their overall incomes are low? Bearing in mind the bitterly cold days last week, would not it be wise to trigger the cold weather payments? Why should so many pensioners be so desperately poor that they dare not keep their homes heated adequately because, understandably, they are frightened that they will be unable to pay their quarterly bills? Will the right hon. Gentleman today authorise cold weather payments, which, after all, amount to only £6 a week?

There are two points. First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, over the past three years we have directed about an extra one third of a billion pounds—including money that is to be paid additionally next April—to less well-off pensioners on income support for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined. Secondly, he will be aware that we have a much-improved scheme of cold weather payments in place this winter. Payments have already been triggered in a substantial number of areas and, thanks to the arrangements that we have made for automatic payment which were not in place last year, the first payments should be going out this week.

While welcoming the good news about the increased proportion of pensioners with occupational pensions, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that during the past 12 years the Government have fully met their pledge to protect state pensions from inflation and that during the past two years state pensions have risen by 15 per cent.?

My hon. Friend is right in both respects. Alongside that, on the firm base of the state retirement pension, we have directed additional help to less well-off pensioners in the way that I described.

Why is it that after three years of pension fund scandals stretching from Hanson to Maxwell, with dozens in between, the right hon. Gentleman still has not made any legislative proposals for reform of the pension fund law? Why is it that after three years he will still not legislate for an independent chairman, for 50 per cent. employee representation, for full and up-to-date disclosure of all relevant financial information, for prohibiting stock lending and for a proper statutory framework for trust law? Will he take on board the fact that if he continues to dither and procrastinate as he is now, the next pension fund crisis will be on his head?

Far from not legislating, we have passed a substantial amount of legislation on a number of occasions including, most recently, the Social Security Act 1990, under which early next month I shall introduce the further regulations on self-investment to which many references have been made. The self-investment regulations—we have had to take great care over the transitional provisions to avoid damaging firms and pension funds—are a good example of the need to act with proper consideration rather than to rush about with half-baked suggestions, as the hon. Gentleman so often does.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the past few years there has been a rapidly increasing number of pensioners, but that the value of occupational pension schemes and the real income from them has also increased rapidly?

Yes, they have and that is substantially because of the way in which the Government have restrained inflation much more effectively than did the previous Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he proposes to make any early changes in the operation of the social fund and in the availability of funds to local offices.

Since April we have made available additional funds of over £43 million to district office budgets for loans and grants. From today social fund officers will be using the completely revised guide which has been introduced in all district offices.

Does not the Minister recognise that, even with these additional funds, if the fund is the final back-up of a system for people in the most urgent need of one-off payments, there is still too much budget limitation at local offices, which have to pay more attention to the availability of funds than to the need of the person applying? Does he recognise that the repayment of a loan is still too much of a limiting factor in granting loans, which should be granted anyway to the people in most urgent need?

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say before that we are dealing at the margins of the social security system with those in exceptional circumstances who have exceptional needs. I believe that the social fund, managing a controlled budget with discretion at local level, is the right way to proceed, but, of course, we are looking forward to the reports from the social policy research unit at York and others in the not-too-distant future when there will be an opportunity to review the whole system.

I thank my right hon. Friend for listening carefully to the representations that I and many Conservative Members have made about the increase in the social fund, especially for the people in Skelmersdale of whom he took note when I made representations to him.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that among his priorities are people who find themselves homeless and without furniture or other items? Under the social fund and the additional money that he has made available, will they be given a high priority in the deliberations of local officers?

As I think my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to make directions and to issue guidance on the social fund. Guidance is also given at local level. It is for the individual social fund officers to use their discretion on whether payments are made.

The Minister is incredibly complacent about the operation of the social fund, on which many thousands of people rely to make ends meet. Is he aware of the abysmally low success rate in many cities? Is he further aware that when a grant is applied for jointly with a loan, there are massive variations among district offices in those cities? In Manchester, for example, the success rate in Wythenshawe is 5·7 per cent., in Chorlton it is 8·7 per cent. and in Rusholme it is 13·6 per cent., despite all three offices having spent their full allowance, including the additional money from February and September this year? Will he urgently consider the amount of money in the social fund to ensure that people are treated equally under this abysmal system whenever they go to social fund offices throughout the year and regardless of which office they apply to?

I reject any concept of its being an abysmal system. In August this year, we provided substantial extra resources for the social fund because we recognised the pressures in offices. All offices received an increase of at least 10 per cent. and those under most pressure received up to 40 per cent. in additional resources. I challenge the hon. Gentleman's presumption about discretion. If there is discretion at local level, there will be variation between different offices when judgments are made by social fund officers. The combination of a fixed budget and the use of discretion is an appropriate way in which to meet exceptional needs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the increase in the value of income support for a single pensioner aged over 80 years from next April.

There has been a widespread welcome for the uprating announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which provides for an additional £60 million above normal uprating for pensioners who are over 80 or disabled. That and the 7 per cent. uprating for income-related benefits, nearly 3 per cent. more than the retail prices index, underline our resolve to protect and raise the living standards of the less well-off people of our nation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that because of the ravages of inflation, the average pension of 400 roubles in Moscow is now only enough to buy 1 kg of sausages? Does she agree that that is a dramatic contrast with the increase of one third in the real value of benefits since the previous Labour Government left office?

Perhaps an even more pertinent contrast, which my hon. Friend may like to consider, is the startling one between the fate of pensioners under the previous Labour Government and the well-being of pensioners under this Government. It is true that pensioners' average total incomes have grown by 34 per cent., whereas for the whole period of the previous Labour Government, they increased by only 3 per cent. The ravages of inflation under the Labour Government, if not of Moscow proportions, are a solemn warning about what would happen to pensioners in the unlikely event of Labour taking power again.

How many sausages can a British pensioner over the age of 80 buy, while keeping his or her house warm?

The retirement pension is regularly uprated in line with prices to enable pensioners to buy necessities. The rise in income-related benefits in line with the Rossi index, which was 3 per cent. more than the retail prices index, gives even greater buying capacity to pensioners who rely on state benefits.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have benefited from real increases in the income support limits for those in residential care and nursing homes over the last three years.

Over the past three years, there have been four increases in the income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes—in April 1989, April 1990, August 1990 and April 1991. Further increases, well above inflation in most cases, are proposed from April 1992.

Some 265,000 income support recipients are expected to benefit from the increases.

Those increases are most welcome, but can my hon. Friend assure me that elderly people no longer requiring medical treatment will not be discharged from NHS hospitals, where they pay nothing, into residential accommodation, where, despite those welcome increases, they will be required to contribute out of their savings until those savings are pretty well exhausted?

I can confirm that it is a requirement that, if the national health service believes that continuing health care is appropriate, it is obliged to provide such care, either in NHS premises or, if necessary, by contract with the private sector. It is not the case that savings have to dwindle to nothing: ordinary income support limits apply.

Does the Minister accept that, although many home owners provided a fine service, many others know that they have the Government over a barrel and push for excessive increases? Is she not rather ashamed—as a member of a Government who pride themselves on targeting—to come to the Dispatch Box and read to her hon. Friend a whole list of universal increases? When will the Government pay attention to the Select Committee on Social Security and go for targeted increases, thus saving taxpayers a great deal of money and ensuring that, at the end of the day, no one is evicted from private residential or nursing care facilities?

My concept of universal benefits and that of the hon. Gentleman differ somewhat. The increases are wholly geared to those on income support. For universal benefits, we must look to the slightly cracked proposals of the Labour party, including its proposals for the old-age pension and how it would not target benefits.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioner households have central heating; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

The latest figures available show that, in 1989, 70 per cent. of pensioner households had central heating, compared with 43 per cent. in 1979.

That dramatic increase is warmly to be welcomed, particularly in view of the very cold weather that we have been having. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that very satisfactory increase reflects the Government's success in ensuring that pensioners have benefited enormously from this country's rising standard of living over the past 12 years?

The figures that I gave in response to my hon. Friend's question about central heating are replicated by those for other consumer durables over the same period, and reflect a considerable increase in pensioner living standards under this considerable increase in pensioner living standards under this Government—an increase of some 34 per cent. from 1979 to 1988.

But surely the problem is how many pensioners can afford to use their central heating. Given his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) a few moments ago, can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many areas cold weather payments have been triggered? Is it just a few?

I cannot give the figures. Severe weather payments have been triggered in a number of areas during this period of exceptionally cold weather. In a sense, I am disappointed that the Meteorological Office was unable to trigger in advance on this occasion. The Met Office tells me that it wanted to study the matter with care, as this was the first such period of cold weather since the new system was introduced. It will be studying the pattern that has occurred this time, and hopes to be able to make improvements in future.

How many?

Order.

rose——

Order.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I did not want the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question that had been asked, from a sedentary position, but perhaps he intended to add to his reply to the supplementary asked by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).

Since I have been asked, the answer is 25.

Given the huge increase in occupational pensions, and the fact that 75 per cent. of newly retired people now have savings, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, over the past 10 years, pensioners' average income has increased to no less than five times what it was under the Labour Government, when income from savings fell by 16 per cent.? Can he also——

Order. Not at this stage. One question, please.

The increase in pensioner incomes in each year of this Government's period of office has been greater than the increase over the whole period of the last Labour Government.

In the context of ensuring that pensioners can heat their houses, what meetings has the Minister had with other Departments following his meeting with me and the Cold Weather Credit Campaign earlier this year?

Obviously we are concerned with the campaigns of the Department of Energy and the Department of Health. We have regular meetings to ensure that the impact of cold weather on the old and vulnerable is as small as possible and that they, their neighbours and friends, and organisations that help them are as well advised as possible about meeting the needs of vulnerable groups.

rose——

rose——

I think that I should call the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) in terms of balance.

The new proposals for discovering whether elderly people require residential or nursing care will be most welcome. Has my right hon. Friend discovered that people who choose to stay in their own homes, and particularly privately owned homes bearing in mind maintenance and other costs, often live a less attractive life than people in many residential homes?

I believe that it is a matter of balance. Many people can enjoy a high standard of living in comfort in surroundings to which they have been accustomed throughout their lives, with the necessary support. Other people may well need help in residential and nursing homes, and we have substantially increased the amount of support that they can receive.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long it now takes to process claims for family credit on average.

In November the average clearance time was 17·5 working days. The family credit unit has now beaten its clearance time target of 18 working days in each of the last four months.

Does the Minister accept that some people have to wait a long time before their family credit is paid? Often that occurs because employers are reluctant to supply information and that causes real hardship. People in my constituency have difficulties in paying their mortgages because the payment of their family credit is slow. Will the Minister make it clear that it is the duty of all employers to furnish information as quickly as possible? Would it not be better if payments could be made within seven working days rather than the time that it takes now?

I looked very carefully at the recent correspondence concerning constituents which the hon. Gentleman has referred to us in relation to that subject. I am pleased to say that we can offer hope for improvement on two counts. The first relates to people who are normally employed. Next April, we will introduce a new administrative formula that will significantly improve processing time and cut down errors. The formula has been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which does not want to consult on it, but would like us to implement it as soon as possible.

Secondly, we have asked the social policy research unit at York university to carry out research in respect of the self-employed. That work is going well and I hope that we will have the conclusions by the middle of next year.

On both counts, we will ensure that the job is done speedily. However, it is up to employers to speed up their response. The new arrangements that I have outlined will provide employers with a form to give information to employees applying for family credit, and that should speed up the process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated proportion of pensioners who own their own homes.

In 1988, 49 per cent. of pensioners owned their own homes.

Is that not encouraging evidence of the extent to which pensioners are sharing in the advance towards greater independence and higher living standards? Is there not an extra benefit for those fortunate enough to own their own homes in that a state pension related to the retail prices index, which includes housing costs, contains a concealed bonus for them?

My hon. Friend is certainly right to believe that it is an advantage and evidence of the success of our policies that a growing number of pensioners have the extra independence that owning their own homes can bring. That trend is also reflected in the ownership of many other things, including telephones, central heating and cars, for which the increase between 1979 and 1988 has been quite dramatic.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many referrals concerning claimants in receipt of invalidity benefit were sent to the regional medical officer from his Department's local offices in (a) 1990, (b) so far in 1991 and (c) what percentage of the total number of such claimants these referrals represent.

It is not possible easily to identify invalidity benefit from other incapacity benefit referrals. However, in total, 824,000 referrals were made in 1990, representing 29 per cent. of claims live at any point during the period. Up to September this year, there were 694,000 referrals, representing 25 per cent.

How do the referrals figure in terms of national averages for the two offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow? Why is such a hard line taken towards people who, in the eyes of GPs and consultants, are manifestly unfit for any kind of work? One constituent of mine has been referred to the regional medical officer 15 times since 1985. That is harassment of the worst kind. It is a case for the Parliamentary ombudsman. It is malpractice, and that hard line should be thrown overboard.

Of course, if the hon. Gentleman would like me to give him figures for his own constituency offices, I will do so in writing. If he wants to raise any individual cases, he knows very well that I will do that. His talk of harassment and a hard-nosed approach hardly squares with the figures. The case load for invalidity benefit from 1978–79 to 1991–92 has increased from 600,000 to 1·35 million. Obviously, it is right that we should be careful about expenditure on that scale, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will give him such information as he requests.