HC Deb 14 May 1985 vol 79 cc158-9
4. Mr. Loyden

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the policy of his Department on the provision of secondhand cookers to people on supplementary benefit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney)

Single payments of supplementary benefit for cookers are intended to meet the cost of reconditioned items, if these are available, and of new items if they are not.

Mr. Loyden

Is the Minister aware that many of the cookers that people in receipt of social security are compelled to buy because of the price limit are dangerous and inefficient? Is he further aware that recently one of my constituents bought a cooker which subsequently exploded while her four children were in the house? Does he agree that it is about time that this matter was considered? Simply because people are in receipt of social security, they should not be put at risk in that way.

Mr. Whitney

I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I have called for a further report from the Garston local office about that incident. On the hon. Gentleman's general question, I should say that the guide set by local officers for such cookers allows for the purchase of safely reconditioned cookers and for proper safety standards in their installation.

Dr. Glyn

Does my hon. Friend agree that the important point is not only that the cooker is properly tested, but that its installation is tested?

Mr. Whitney

Of course, I agree with that. The allowances made under the single payments arrangements allow for such installation.

Mr. Meacher

Will the Minister confirm that single payments for items, such as cookers, for those on supplementary benefit—2 million of which were made last year at an average value of £77 — will be axed under the Government's supplementary benefit review? The Government are already taking back £700 million a year from the unemployed through the taxation of unemployment benefit, have already ended the earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit, which was worth £16 a week, and are now apparently demanding that the unemployed and those in receipt of supplementary benefit should pay one fifth of their rents and rates. How much further will this vendetta against the unemployed and those on supplementary benefit be taken?

Mr. Whitney

The hon. Gentleman must contain his impatience about the contents of the social security reviews until those reviews are published. I remind him that spending on the social security programme has increased in real terms by 28 per cent. since the Government came to office.