HC Deb 12 April 1988 vol 131 cc10-2
10. Dr. Godman

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants he expects to be better off and how many to be worse off (a) in cash terms, and (b) in terms of their real disposable income, following the changes in social security in April.

14. Mr. Ernie Ross

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants he expects to be better off (a) in cash terms, and (b) in terms of their real disposable income, following on the changes in social security in April.

Mr. Moore

Most social security benefits, including retirement pension paid to over 9 million pensioners, are uprated this week giving cash increases to recipients and protecting the real value of their benefit. So far as the income-related benefits are concerned, around 5.1 million recipients will gain and 2.2 million experience no change, compared with fewer than one million who lose in cash terms.

Dr. Godman

Listening to the ministerial recitations of those figures, I am reminded of a well-known book about statistics that was published in 1973—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

May I ask the Minister, given the notorious inaccuracy of the statistics produced by his Department, and given that the arrangements for transitional protection are being made by local DHSS offices, to place in the Library a list containing the actual number of claimants who are: to receive transitional protection? Is it the case that they are not to receive benefit uprating this year, and, by that fact, they are already losers and will continue to be losers for many years to come?

Mr. Moore

First, the data are from the family expenditure survey. As Opposition Members know, but seem to have discovered only recently, the data were printed in 1985 and again in October 1987 in absolute detail. All the data have been printed and published ,and were laid before the House when the uprating statement was issued in October 1987.

Mr. Ross

The House will be shocked by the complacent attitude of the Secretary of State. He will know that his own Social Security Advisory Committee, the Citizens Advice Bureaux—hardly a militant Socialist organisation—and the Church have all said that there will be far more losers than winners. What is he really going to do to help those losers when the information is available?

Mr. Moore

I thought that in his main question the hon. Gentleman was asking for facts and statistics as opposed to the opinions of other organisations. I am not suggesting for one moment that there are not people who criticise some aspects of the changes, though many of them tend to concentrate only on the negative aspects of the changes as opposed to the overall strategic thrust, which is beneficial.

Sir Peter Emery

Every hon. Member wants to ensure that the worst-off sections of society receive benefit, but there are some who have been thrifty all their lives, who have retired with some savings and who are now in difficulty because, with the rise in the cost of living, their savings have been depleted. Housing benefit brought them between £300 and £400 a year. Therefore, they believe that some of these measures are a disincentive to thrift. These people need further consideration.

Mr. Moore

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the problems that are faced by any society which tries to encourage thrift and which also has to make a judgment about the level at which one cuts off benefit. Quite clearly, nobody would wish to discourage thrift. My hon. Friend knows that for the first time those with very small savings—up to £3,000—will not suffer any disadvantage. The line is drawn only for those with savings above £6,000. My hon. Friend also knows that people save because they seek independence. They do not save to achieve dependency. My hon. Friend will also be conscious of the fact that there are many millions of people on very low incomes with no savings at all who find no good reason to pay part of the rent or rates of those with substantial savings.

Mr. Sims

To put some of the Opposition's claims into perspective, will my right hon. Friend provide a little more detail about the extent of the increases? For example, how many of the so-called gainers are to enjoy £3 or more extra a week?

Mr. Moore

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of one of the points that is not often raised here. Of those who are to receive an increase, 40 per cent., or over 2 million, will be gaining an extra £3 or more a week.

Mr. Rowlands

The Secretary of State has argued that these changes are vital to the economy. What is so vital to the economy that requires a cut in rate rebate for a miner's widow of £1.69? Is she supposed to join the enterprise culture?

Mr. Moore

The overall changes increase public expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary drew attention to the fact that, because of the successful management of the economy, we are able to increase to £48.5 billion our social security expenditure in 1988–89.

Mr. Cormack

Can we, in 1988, really call £6,000 substantial savings?

Mr. Moore

My hon. Friend asks a question that obviously many people will ask. I know he will understand that those who have to make such a decision have difficulty in drawing a line. He will also be very conscious of the millions of people who have no savings and who therefore see no reason why they, on very low incomes, should help to support those who save, I assume, to achieve independence, not dependency.

Mr. Robin Cook

I refer the Secretary of State to the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), that of Mrs. Felicity Godden who, whatever the outcome of an application to the independent living fund, from Monday lost £48 in social security, free school meals for three daughters and most of her housing benefit. Is the Secretary of State aware that there are 15,000 other disabled claimants who are losing similar amounts under the same rule? Are they all supposed to apply to the independent living fund? Can it cope with them? Is there any word that can more adequately describe their treatment by this Government than wicked?

Mr. Moore

It might be helpful, Mr. Speaker, to try to answer the question that has been raised, because I have been appalled by the attempt to make political capital out of what is clearly an exceptional and difficult case. It is for the independent adjudication authorities to determine how the regulations should apply, but I understand that Mrs. Godden continues to receive the wife's severe disablement benefit, attendance allowance, mobility allowance and child benefit—over £113 a week. Her husband's earnings, in addition, amount to £128 and she has free accommodation. In addition, I understand that she is being invited to put in a claim to the independent living fund, and that the local authority's social services department is investigating to see whether other assistance may be appropriate. Both the local authority and our social security officials have been trying to visit her. Unfortunately, they have not so far been able to see her because she has been away on holiday.