HC Deb 21 May 1998 vol 312 cc1101-2
14. Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling)

What representations he has received on his tax and benefit changes to reduce pensioners' fuel bills. [41687]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson)

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that we have received 1,000 representations on pensioners' winter fuel bills. He will be aware that there has been widespread acceptance and endorsement of the measures that we have taken on that matter, which include the abolition of the gas levy, the reduction in value added tax to 5 per cent. for energy-saving materials and the reductions in other areas. Taken together with the £20 and £50 announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for winter fuel bills last winter, that means that pensioners will be better off on their winter fuel bills alone by between £100 and £130.

Mr. Coaker

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate the Government on their measures so far to help pensioners with their fuel bills, in marked contrast to the policies of the previous Government. However, does he agree that it is important not only to help pensioners pay their bills, but to ensure that those bills are as small as possible in the first place? We need the Government to do as much as possible to keep those bills small through various measures. Will he join me in congratulating my authority, Gedling borough council, which recently launched a wide range of energy-saving initiatives to help pensioners in particular to stay in their own homes and keep their fuel bills low?

Mr. Robinson

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both counts. I would add that local authorities throughout the country are taking up the opportunity offered by the reduction in VAT on energy-saving materials to do precisely what he said; I compliment Gedling local authority on doing so.

Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

What is the Government's latest estimate of the cost of the tens of thousands of £10 and £20 cheques sent out in error, which will not be refunded to the Treasury?

Mr. Robinson

The hon. Gentleman is trying to zero in on a narrow and irrelevant point—he should consider that there were 6 million communications, of which a small proportion fell into that category. Why does he not think of the 6 million pensioners who got the benefit, instead of trying to narrow in on a small and incidental administrative point?