§ 8. Mr. McCrindleTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what current plans he has to review any aspect of the reforms introduced on 1 April 1988.
§ Mr. MooreWe have given an undertaking to monitor all aspects of the social security reforms, and that is a continuing process. We have given extra help to the least well-off families with children, for example, and we are making nearly £200 million extra available to older and disabled pensioners from October.
§ Mr. McCrindleGiven that many of the people within the Government's sights in terms of targeting benefits more efficiently are benefiting as a consequence of the 1988 review, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless take account of the failure, seemingly, of targeting to reach people just above income support level who were recently described in a pamphlet as being "not rich, not poor"? As many of them did not have the opportunity to build up an occupational pension, as so many people now retiring have done, are they not a section of society to which the Government ought urgently to turn their attention?
§ Mr. MooreI am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that the new income support system is fairer and more generous. He also said—I thought it a fair point—that we should always remember that just above the income support line are people who, by any definition, are not well off. I know that he will be pleased about the way in which family credit tries to help poorer families with children, going some way up the income scale. He will also be delighted not only with the adjustments to transitional arrangements for housing benefit for those above income support level that we made last spring, but with the news that 1.4 million of the 2.6 million elderly and disabled pensioners who will benefit this autumn from the changes that we are introducing will be above that level.
§ Mr. MaddenIn his review of the social security system, will the Secretary of State ensure that the practice of giving food vouchers to people who apply for crisis loans is scrapped? A constituent of mine, the mother of three children under eight, recently lost all her money. When she applied to the local office for £20, she was given a food voucher which stipulated that she could spend the money only at a named store within a week of its issue, that she must not spend it on tobacco, alcohol or sweets, and that the loan must be repaid in 1990. That food voucher was useless for her purpose—to buy a present for her son. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of a system which represents all the worst aspects of the old poor relief system which we all thought that we had left behind years ago?
§ Mr. MooreI am extremely pleased that as a result of the Government's economic success we are able to spend vast amounts on income support and, in addition, on such things as the social fund. Some people receive vouchers of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I shall look into what he has said, but I am sure that he would wish to put this into perspective.
§ Mr. MaddenSo would my constituent.
§ Mr. MooreIf the hon. Gentleman could contain his inherent bitterness for a second, he might like to concern 666 himself with the million or so people who have already benefited from the social fund. They are not exactly complaining.
§ Mr. BaldryWill my right hon. Friend base his review on one criterion—the existence of a strong net below which no one can fall? Does he agree that we must not become confused by those in the media who, in recent weeks, have tried to relate such a net to equality? The purpose of the social security system has never been to introduce more equality into society. It has always been to ensure that people are properly protected.
§ Mr. MooreMy hon. Friend has expressed very well points that I have lately been trying to address. We are trying to help large numbers of our fellow citizens who are clearly in need. We must keep that clear in our minds, and not be forced by distorted statistics into the pretence that the country is somehow failing, creating an illusory poverty affecting one third of the population. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask me to look constantly to see what parts of society need additional help, and I shall seek consistently to do that.
§ Mr. Robin CookWhat hope does the right hon. Gentleman's review hold for the quarter of a million pensioners and other claimants receiving transitional protection, who received no increase last year or this year and who under the present rules will receive none next year? Is he aware that by definition they are among the frailest and most disabled claimants? It would be outrageous if they spent a third year on a frozen income, reduced to what by any standards—absolute or relative —is a degree of poverty that is a disgrace to any civilised society.
§ Mr. MooreI congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting back to the question that his hon. Friends keep trying to ask but never seem to be present to do so. I will put the matter into perspective. The hon. Gentleman seems not to be endorsing the new structural income support system that his own team's review does not seem to wish to reject.
Of those on supplementary benefit, 35 per cent. received no payment for additional requirements of any kind. The average additional requirement payment to the sick and disabled—the hon. Gentleman mentioned the disabled—was £5.34 a week. Instead, 220,000 claimants are now receiving a disability premium of £13.20. That is a considerable improvement, which I would expect both sides of the House to welcome.
Some 4,400 disabled people were receiving domestic assistance additions, averaging—[Interruption.] I realise that this answer will be unpalatable to the Opposition Front Bench. Those people were getting domestic assistance addition, averaging £4.87 a week. Now over 7,000 are, I am happy to say, getting the severe disability premium of £26.20 a week. That is an illustration of the change to a new and better system to help those who are most disadvantaged.