HC Deb 10 December 1985 vol 88 cc749-50
6. Mr. Nellist

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received on the social security reviews.

Mr. Fowler

We have received more than 7,000 responses to the Green Paper.

Mr. Nellist

Will the Secretary of State confirm that more than 80 per cent. of those representations were against his proposals and that they included a petition with more than 20,000 signatures, the largest petition ever raised by the people of Coventry? Is it not ironic that the Secretary of State plans to increase temporary staff at the DHSS by more than 10,000 to deal with the proposed cuts, but refuses to increase the permanent staff to deal with the present work load? Is he aware that in some inner city offices the turnover is between 50 and 60 per cent. due to the work load and the low pay, and that my constituents are suffering severe delays in the payment of benefit?

Mr. Fowler

The overwhelming view is that very few respondents are satisfied with the present system. As I have said, the Government's proposals will be set out in a White Paper very shortly.

Mr. Neil Hamilton

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members are hoping for a radical review of the social security system and look forward especially to the abolition of SERPS because it is no part of Conservative policy to provide a nationalised earnings-related pensions system?

Mr. Fowler

My hon. Friend has only a short time to wait before all will be revealed.

Mr. Pike

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many families are concerned about the changes in housing benefit, which will affect the most deprived families, and that local authorities will be hard hit because they will have to pick up the additional burden? Will he ensure that those families do not suffer and that local government is not further penalised financially by the Government?

Mr. Fowler

There is not a great deal that I can acid to what I have already said, save to point out that housing benefit goes further up the income scale than basically arty other income-related social security benefit.

Mr. Favell

What proportion of the representations were from professionals employed by welfare organisations with a vested interest in the status quo?

Mr. Fowler

No breakdown of that kind has been done, but I will see whether it can be done.

Mr. Soley

Will the Secretary of State respond to the representations from the Hammersmith Unemployed Workers Centre, which objects strongly to the suggestions in the review? Is he aware that people have to sleep on the floor at the centre because the supplementary benefit offices cannot provide a proper service, not least because one office has been smashed up as a result of pressure on claimants and staff in the area? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about that, and what message does he wish me to convey to those people'?

Mr. Fowler

I shall look at the problem raised by the right hon. Gentleman and seek to reply to him.

Mr. Michael Morris

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Friday I attended a meeting called by the TUC Week of Action, at which 35 people were present, and that, apart from the representative of the Child Poverty Action Group, who made some valid comments, the majority of the remaining 34 people favoured combining supplementary benefit and family income supplement? Is he further aware that the vast majority of my constituents look foward to the White Paper and to a simplified system for those in need?

Mr. Fowler

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Very few people are satisfied with the social security system. The present system is indefensible. It is far too complex and help does not always go to the right people. The time for reform has come.

Mr. Meacher

Is the Secretary of State aware that relief at the preservation of SERPS will be premature and wrong if he makes major cuts in pension benefit for which the Government Actuary has found not an ounce of justification? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a national insurance scheme for which people have paid in full and in which they have entitlements and full rights to benefit? Does he agree that any private insurance company which unilaterally reneged on its obligations in the way that he seems to intend would be taken to court for bad faith and breach of contract?

Mr. Fowler

The hon. Gentleman should not rehearse his speech before he has seen the proposals. Perhaps he will now publish the Labour party's proposals on social security and tell the British people whether he still intends to abolish mortgage interest tax relief, because the public want to know.