HC Deb 05 December 1994 vol 251 cc1-3
1. Mr. David Shaw

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his objectives for the delivery of social security benefits.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley)

My principal objectives are: to focus benefits on the most needy, to improve incentives to work and save, to encourage personal choice and, not least, to bear down on fraud and abuse.

Mr. Shaw

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he confirm that we are doing enough to incentivise those who are registered as unemployed to take work when it is available? Are we really encouraging people to come off the unemployment register? Why are some of my constituents concerned that people who are capable of work are claiming to be unemployed, despite the fact that, in some cases, employers want to employ them?

Mr. Lilley

We are taking several important steps forward to enable and encourage people to return to work. The jobseeker's allowance, which I announced in the White Paper a few weeks ago, will give people an incentive to return to work and will certainly ensure that they fulfil their commitment to the taxpayer by actively seeking work, making themselves available for it and taking jobs when they are available. In addition, in the Budget and the social security statement last week, we announced a £600 million package of work incentives to help to make it more rewarding for people to return to work and for employers to take them on.

Mr. Frank Field

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the pay of the head of the Benefits Agency is linked not only to his effectiveness in combating fraud—the whole House is against fraud—but to ensuring that those who are genuinely eligible for help gain the help to which they are entitled?

Mr. Lilley

We do not give the details of the terms of employment of heads of agencies, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the head of that agency and all its employees aspire to achieve both those objectives.

Mr. Alan Howarth

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while the objectives that he just stated are necessary, there are tensions between them? What assessment has he made of the effects on pay and skill levels, as well as on public expenditure, of the policy of subsidising low pay through family credit and the new in-work benefit for childless people? Has he compared the consequences of the Government's policy of thus nationalising employers' social responsibility with the consequences of the Labour party's policy of privatising it through the minimum wage?

Mr. Lilley

I believe that employers' primary responsibility is to satisfy the desires of consumers and to provide remunerative employment for their employees. Where the productivity of employees in the marketplace does not lead to rewards commensurate with what they could get on benefit, however, it is reasonable that we should offer them some help to supplement their incomes. I am glad, therefore, that we announced last week a £10 a week increase in family credit for those working full time, the importance of which should not be underestimated.