HC Deb 09 December 1975 vol 902 cc206-10
2. Mr. Hooley

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken to reduce the complexity of means tests for social security benefits.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley)

Not all means tests are complex. Where it exists, complexity stems from the need to respond as fairly as possible to many different family and personal circumstances. In view of this constraint, there are limits to further simplification. If, however, my hon. Friend has anything in mind, I shall be glad to look at it.

Mr. Hooley

Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole field of social security benefits has now become a jungle in which only the expert patrols of the Child Poverty Action Group and similar people can find their way? Is there not a real problem here, and a need for a system that ordinary people can understand?

Mr. O'Malley

I agree with my hon. Friend that the supplementary benefit system and means-tested benefits, to which this Question refers, can often be complex and confusing to the layman. Nevertheless, the Government have tried to help in this matter, as did the previous Administration, by the use of a 12-months' award for various types of benefits, and by the system of passporting.

My hon. Friend may wish to know that a pilot scheme, using a multi-purpose means-tested claims form, is being operated experimentally in Shropshire. There may well be lessons to be drawn from that concerning the type of simplification which all of us, on both sides of the House, would want to see.

Mr. Dudley Smith

Is the Minister aware that there is a man in my constituency who is now entitled to £102 a week in State benefits, tax-free? Is he further aware that this has caused great offence to many poorly-off people who find it very difficult to get the requisite amount of grant? In the name of all conscience, is it not time that the system was overhauled?

Mr. O'Malley

I think that the hon. Gentleman has not looked carefully at the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Healey (Mr. Hooley), which is concerned with means testing. As I understand the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the benefits payable were national insurance rather than means-tested benefits. Under successive Governments, it has not been found possible to tax short-term benefits, and for that reason there can be only a very small number of cases, where there are large numbers of children in a family, in which a high level of total benefit is payable. The level of benefits payable in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been settled and agreed in this House under successive Governments.

Mr. D. E. Thomas

We welcome what the Minister said about the pilot scheme in Shropshire, but has his Department any plans to extend the scheme to other areas? When does he expect a report about the scheme, so that he can introduce a multi-purpose form for general use?

Mr. O'Malley

It is too soon yet to say how long we shall need to run this on an experimental basis. However, the idea of multi-purpose means testing, which, if it could be operated successfully, is clearly desirable, was first conceived under the previous Labour Administration. When I left the Department in 1970, it was under way. When I returned in 1974, I found that no progress had been made. It is since the coming to power of this Government that we have introduced this scheme, and I hope that valuable lessons will be learned from it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Referring back to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith), is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave concern amongst many old-age pensioners who have contributed 30 and 40 years for their old-age pensions and who, when they try to get a few shillings or a few pence extra, find that they cannot get it, whereas people who have come to this country and have never contributed a halfpenny—or, at the most, have contributed for one or two years—are able, month after month, to get hundreds of pounds? This cannot be fair, and it causes trouble. Will not my right hon. Friend look into it?

Mr. O'Malley

Before Opposition Members, wanting to make cheap party political capital out of this, start cheering and jeering, perhaps they will do me the courtesy of listening to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). Successive Governments have expressed concern at abuses of the social security system, and quite properly so. This Government take an identical view to that of the last Government in their efforts to combat abuses of the system wherever they are found. The previous Government commissioned the Fisher Report on abuse. This Government, since February 1974, has successively implemented the recommendations of the Fisher Report. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are at one in opposing and doing all that they can to stop abuse of the social security system. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said, we have also to have regard to the vast majority of people who need these benefits and are genuine claimants.

Sir George Young

In view of the fact that there are now more than 40 means-tested benefits, with all the resulting complexity and the cost of administering them, will the Minister reconsider something along the lines of a tax credit scheme, with a view to simplifying the administration of means-tested benefits?

Mr. O'Malley

As soon as resources allow, this Government are primarily concerned to push back the whole area of means testing, which is the exact opposite of the policy of the previous Government, who introduced the family income supplement scheme, with all its implications. The hon. Gentleman will understand that our long-term pensions scheme, the noncontributory invalidity benefit and the mobility allowance are all designed to cut back substantially over the years the area of means testing—[Interruption.] How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that there is—

Hon. Members

Too long.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must remind the House that this is not a debate.

Mr. O'Malley

May I say briefly, on the point about the negative income tax scheme, that Opposition Members can hardly ask us to cut back public expenditure and, in the next breath, ask us to spend an additional £2,300 million to implement such a scheme.