§ 7. Mr. KnoxTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he intends to introduce measures to reduce the time taken to determine appeals against the disallowance of social security benefits.
§ Mr. NewtonI understand from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that several initiatives are currently being proposed or piloted in conjunction with the Independent Tribunal Service to reduce the time taken to determine appeals.
§ Mr. KnoxDoes my right hon. Friend agree that too many appeals take too long to determine and that causes a great deal of anxiety to applicants? Does he agree that something drastic needs to be done about that?
§ Mr. NewtonI do not quite go along with the way in which my hon. Friend presents the position. I accept that we all want to see an improvement in the speed of determining appeals. Both the Benefits Agency and, indeed, Judge Holden, as president of the Independent Tribunal Service are devoting a great deal of time and attention to the matter at present. There has been an interesting pilot scheme to speed up submissions in family credit cases. It looks as if the scheme will provide a model to speed up other appeal processes. I accept my hon. Friend's underlying anxiety. We shall certainly continue to do everything that we can to improve the position.
§ Mr. MeacherIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that 16 to 17-year-olds are the biggest group who are disallowed benefit, and that latest estimates suggest that 65,000 of them have no job, no training, no further education and no benefit? Is he aware of a recent survey which found that 21 per cent. admitted that they could support themselves only by stealing, 6 per cent. only by begging and 2 per cent. only by selling drugs, and that many were starving and had not eaten for several days? Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed of the hypocrisy of the Government talking about the citizens charter while depriving tens of thousands of their citizens of the basic essentials of life?
§ Mr. NewtonI suppose that I could say that that question has nothing to do with the original question. Whether or not it has, it is a characteristically overheated piece of Oldham hype talk. We have made persistent and, in my view, successful attempts to improve the operation of that part of the benefit system. That, and the severe hardship provision—of which he is well aware, but did not even mention—are working well.