§ 8. Mr. WoodTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has that the new income support scheme is easier to operate than supplementary benefit.
§ Mr. MooreClaims for income support are being processed more quickly and accurately than claims for supplementary benefit. Error rates are down from 12 per cent. to 8 per cent. and will fall further. Claims are being processed in five days as opposed to as many as 11, and we shall improve further. People find the scheme easier to understand and the rate of successful claims has increased from 74 per cent. to 80 per cent.
§ Mr. WoodI thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging remarks, which confirm the impression which I have gained from my local office. What is the average clearance rate under the new scheme compared with that under the old? I invite my right hon. Friend to say more about whether applicants are finding it an easier scheme to use than the previous one.
§ Mr. MooreThere has been a reduction from the worst rate of about 11 days, which we saw in the latter part of 1987. The average number of days last year was seven, and we are now down to five. Our customers are finding the scheme a great deal easier to use, and the staff are finding it enormously simpler. We should all be pleased to know that as a result the success rate has increased.
§ Mr. WareingHow is the new system helping people like Mr. Wyatt, a constituent of mine, who was asked at 636 the Department of Employment office how much he expected to receive if he was lucky enough to get a job? When Mr. Wyatt answered £120 a week, my 58-year-old constituent found that his income support was stopped. It was resumed only a few weeks later and the payments were reduced by £6 per week. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about the way in which people like my constituent are discriminated against?
§ Mr. MooreI have learnt how important and wise it is to get all the details about individual cases before trying to comment on any particular one. The new income support, in comparison with the old supplementary benefit, has not only made the system simpler, but has improved turnround and the way in which people get their claims settled. I should have thought that all hon. Members would regard that as important, because nearly 4.5 million people are on our live income support load. The new system has reduced the error rate and improved the success rate. I should have thought that all hon. Members would welcome that.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettDoes the Minister accept that one of the problems with the old system continues with the present system? There is a tendency among some officers to assure constituents, including some of mine, that a giro is in the post when they inquire about benefit. However, the inquirer finds, after several days' wait and many complaints to the Post Office, that the giro is not in the post. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that officers tell people that a giro is in the post only when they have a document before them which makes it clear that the giro is in the post? That would stop them misleading people.
§ Mr. MooreI will look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has made because I have experience of similar cases in my constituency which is an urban area. Overall, the system is working infinitely better than the old, highly complex and very difficult supplementary benefit system.