HC Deb 04 February 1991 vol 185 cc4-5
5. Mrs. Currie

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department has made any estimate of the savings to the taxpayer as a result of efficiency scrutinies since 1978–79.

Mr. Jack

Since 1979, 26 such scrutinies looking at both the Department's performance and quality of service delivery have been concluded. These have secured savings of over £145 million. In addition to the formal scrutiny programme, we are constantly looking for other efficiency savings and in 1989–90, these totalled some £60 million, £30 million of which was from purchasing and supply initiatives.

Mrs. Currie

Am I right in thinking that the efficiency scrutiny that has been tackling fraud has enjoyed spectacular success, with savings of about £300 million a year? Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that, instead of going to those who are not entitled to it, the money is now going to those who are entitled to it, especially benefiting those in greatest need?

Mr. Jack

With her characteristic skill and ministerial experience, my hon. Friend has put her finger on the point of the scrutiny process, certainly as regards fraud. She is right to say that if we were not posting back savings of £326 million for the next financial year, we would not have been able to paint such a comprehensive picture in our recent publication on public expenditure. Our objective is to ensure that the right people receive the right help from the benefit scheme.

I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent suggestion about ways in which her own local office might improve its delivery of social security benefits. She will shortly receive in the post news of improvements in her local office.

Mr. Frank Field

Opposition Members welcome any improvement in efficiency and we are also pleased with any crackdown on abuse. In looking at the savings that can be made, however, should not the Government spend more time on a major factor—the national insurance fund? How does the Minister justify the £6 billion lost to the taxpayer through the Government's bribe to people leaving the state scheme to enter the private sector?

Mr. Jack

The hon. Gentleman's use of the word "bribe" is uncharitable. He has considerable knowledge of the social security system and he should realise that our analysis of the burden on the diminished work force in 2030 required the Government to take early action on the question of the state earnings-related retirement system. He is right that we must always pay attention to savings made as a result of scrutiny, but in that case, the action that we took was as a result of careful analysis of future trends.