HC Deb 11 May 1982 vol 23 cc586-7
8. Mr. Rooker

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans for further savings in the social security budget for 1982–83 or 1983–84.

Mr. Fowler

Our plans for savings in the social security budget for 1982–83 and 1983–84 have already been given to the House. The measures taken from 1979 to 1981 were detailed in a written answer to the hon. Member on 28 January. Since then the Government have published the public expenditure White Paper outlining expenditure plans to 1984–85. These savings must be seen against a total social security budget in 1982–83 of some £32 billion, including an uprating in November 1982 of about £3 billion.

Mr. Rooker

But does the Secretary of State appreciate that the figures in the public expenditure White Paper do not tell the House or the country how the savings will be achieved? Does he accept that the savings achieved so far, for example, for a woman becoming widowed today, compared with three years ago, mean a loss of £15 a week, and for a person on average earnings losing his job today, compared with three years ago, a loss in benefit of 13 a week? Are those the kind of savings that are still ahead of us?

Mr. Fowler

I cannot commit myself on future savings, but I have no present plans for further announcements in that regard. The measures taken, and how much they will save, have already been set out for the hon. Gentleman in the answer to which I referred. I am sure that he will recognise that part of the Government's success in bringing down inflation is due to the success that we have had in this area.

Mrs. Knight

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the campaign to detect and end abuse of social security payments will continue unabated?

Mr. Fowler

Yes, it will continue. I am sure that the whole House will recognise that it is important, when many people are unquestionably in genuine need, to lake action against those who abuse the system.

Mr. Cunliffe

Does the Secretary of State agree that in any savings that may be made priority should be given to the just claims of the nurses and the lower paid in the National Health Service? How does he reconcile the despicable behaviour of the Government in allowing the Civil Service unions to go to arbitration, accepting the arbitration award and rejecting the application of the Health Service unions?

Mr. Fowler

I should be happy to debate that matter with the hon. Gentleman, but it does not remotely come under the social security budget and the savings there.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the social security budget is intertwined with the tax income to the Government? Will he give further thought to reversing what appears to be the Government's slightly wobbly position on the 5 per cent. abatement, given that the income from the tax on those benefits will be 10 times as great as the cost to the Exchequer of the increase in the social security budget as it should be increased?

Mr. Fowler

I have already given a commitment to the House that we shall keep the 5 per cent. unemployment abatement under review, and we shall do that.