§ 8. Mr. Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many pensioners are dependent on means-tested supplementary benefits.
§ 10. Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the number of pensioners dependent on means-tested supplementary benefits.
§ Mr. EnnalsThe proportion of pensioners dependent on supplementary benefit has decreased since 1973. Nevertheless, in December 1976, 1,952,000 pensioners and their dependants were receiving supplementary benefits. This is still too many. The new pension scheme will enable people to qualify for additional pensions based on their former earnings. Over the years this should greatly reduce the need for pensioners to turn to means-tested benefits. In the meantime we are anxious to ensure that pensioners claim the supplementary benefit to which they are entitled.
§ Mr. BowdenI thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that about half a million pensioners who could claim supplementary benefits are not doing so? Will he now instigate a major new publicity campaign to ensure that more pensioners claim their rights through supplementary benefits?
§ Mr. EnnalsThe latest estimate suggests that about 74 per cent. of those entitled to claim do claim benefits. The amount of unclaimed benefit, at 1975 figures, was estimated to be about £65 million. The average amount unclaimed was about £2.10. We are anxious that all pensioners entitled to benefit should claim. This question has been carefully looked at by the Review Team on Supplementary Benefits, and I expect to receive its report shortly.
§ Mr. MillerThe annual report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission gives a figure of 600,000 pensioners not claiming benefit. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the reluctance of such people to claim charity—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not charity."] I am using the Commission's term—and their resentment at the rough and ready means testing methods of the Department, a resentment that will be increased when, under the new pension scheme, new pensioners will benefit and existing pensioners will not?
§ Mr. EnnalsFirst, I protest at the use of the word "charity". Supplementary benefit, as introduced by the former 1221 Labour Government, is an absolute right. It is our commitment to people that they should not fall below a certain level of income. I deeply resent hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches or people anywhere else talking about supplementary benefit as if it were some kind of handout. Elderly people are entitled to a minimum standard of living. What they resent are constant statements that people who claim supplementary benefit are in some way scroungers. Much of that resentment explains why some people are reluctant to claim benefit. We have often said that Opposition Members should not use these tactics. They are very unfair to pensioners.
§ Mr. BidwellDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the unfolding pension scheme looks very good for future pensioners, but that it is not much good to existing old-age pensioners, especially those who support the Labour movement? Our duty is to increase greatly the value of the State retirement pension as quickly as we can. We shall never get it from a Conservative Government, because we have never got it in the past.
§ Mr. EnnalsMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. Existing pensioners will not share in the new additional pensions because those additional pensions are paid for by contributions. However, we have made an absolute commitment to existing pensioners not only that their pensions will keep pace with rising costs but that they will share in rising living standards. We have done that throughout the years of this Labour Government, and we have made an absolute pledge that we shall do it during the period of the next Labour Government.
§ Mrs. Kellett-BowmanDoes the Secretary of State accept that it is absolutely vital that pensioners do not become homebound? Is he satisfied with the mere £4 million that his right hon. Friend has allocated to the scheme for concessionary travel for old-age pensioners? Does he realise that in areas such as mine—Lancaster—with large numbers of elderly ratepayers, those unfortunate people are actually subsidising their own concessions? Will he seek to persuade the Government to bring in a national system of concessionary fares?
§ Mr. EnnalsThat is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
§ Mr. Ioan EvansI support my right hon. Friend's plea to stop this campaign about scroungers. At the same time, will he seek to draw to the attention of those who are entitled to social security benefit, but who are not claiming it and whose needs are great, that it is available to them?
§ Mr. EnnalsYes. As I said in answer to a previous question, this issue has been looked at carefully by the Review Team on Supplementary Benefits. As soon as I have its report, I shall decide what additional action can be taken. However, we are now producing explanatory material that people can readily understand. I believe that often in the past the Department produced material giving information about supplementary benefits that was not easily understood by those most in need. We are now attempting to produce material that can be easily understood by ordinary people with simple needs.
§ Mrs. ChalkerSince 61 per cent. of the supplementary benefit discretionary payments go to old people, will the Secretary of State tell us what investigations he has done into the needs of older pensioners, so that they do not have to make unnecessary demands, through lack of income, on local authority social services departments? With discretionary payments we already have evidence that this is so.
§ Mr. EnnalsAn increasingly high proportion of those on supplementary benefits are getting additional benefits, for instance, for heating and for diet. There is a great increase in the proportion of supplementary benefits related to heating additions, and this means that people are less likely to turn to local authorities on a cash basis. We shall always consider making a concessionary payment to a needy, elderly person.