HC Deb 26 October 1982 vol 29 cc878-9
6. Mr. Bowden

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, following his consultations on the death grant, if he will now make a statement on the grant's future.

Mr. Rossi

A total of 597 letters commenting on the proposals put forward in the consultative document have been received, of which 55 per cent. rejected all of the options put forward, 30 per cent. supported one or more of the options and 15 per cent. covered other suggestions. There were four petitions rejecting the proposals. The Government are considering what, if any, action should now be taken in the light of the public response to their proposals.

Mr. Bowden

Will my hon. Friend confirm his opposition to any means test at the time of death? Will he redouble his efforts to see whether it is possible to find a clawback from estates that could repay any death grants that were given?

Mr. Rossi

Both those matters were implicit in the proposals in the consultative document. First, there was a limit with regard to the amount of the estate, and that worked as a clawback. Secondly, by passporting we felt that we avoided a means test at the time of death.

Mr. Stallard

Is the Minister aware that the death grant has been under review for about 14 years? Does he accept that the representations that he has received reflect the opinions of millions of people who are concerned about the issue? Is he aware that the delay in coming to a decision about the future of the death grant, coupled with the £300 cut-off for single payments that was mentioned earlier, is causing great hardship and concern to millions of old-age pensioners? Will he ensure that the matter is no longer under review and that it is brought forward to the House early in the new Session?

Mr. Rossi

I am aware of the concern that has been expressed on that matter. I am also aware that for 14 years no Government uprated the death grant—neither the previous Administration nor the present one. At least we have made an attempt to resolve the problem by diverting resources to where they are most needed. I repeat what I said when the consultative document was introduced to the House, that resources are not available for a substantial across-the-board uplift in the death grant.

Mr. Alexander

I appreciate the public expenditure constraints on my hon. Friend, but presumably he agrees that £30 is a fraction of the cost to the surviving relative after there is a death in the family. Now that the consultations appear to have been concluded, may we expect a comment or a statement shortly?

Mr. Rossi

I accept that the £30 death grant represents a small proportion of the average cost of a funeral today. That is one reason why the Government embarked on the exercise. We are now consulting colleagues about further steps to be taken as a result of the response. At this stage I cannot tell my hon. Friend when the consultations will be concluded.

Mr. Foulkes

Surely the Minister is aware that more than 500,00() people have died since he introduced his consultative document. In some cases, surviving relatives have received less than £30—either £15 or no death grant. Is it not about time that we were told when the House will be given a statement about the future of the death grant?

Mr. Rossi

The fact that sometimes no death grant is received after people die is due to the contributory principle. What we have suggested in our consultative document departs from the contributory principle. The majority of those who replied to us said that they did not want that principle to be breached. That is our problem.