HC Deb 19 June 2000 vol 352 cc7-8
4. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

What progress has been made in encouraging pensioners to claim benefits to which they are entitled. [124928]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker)

I ask the hon. Gentleman to take account of the two dates that I shall cite, so there is no misunderstanding.

Since the launch of the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign was announced at the end of March, about 72,000 calls have been received at the tele-claim centre. A television advertising campaign to support the mailshots began on 30 May, and in the first two weeks of this month we sent letters to about 417,000 pensioners who have been identified as having a potential entitlement to income support. As at 15 June, the latest date for which I have information, we had received applications from about 67,000 pensioners.

Mr. Swayne

Will the Minister turn his attention to future take-up? Does he estimate that, for a 75-year-old pensioner, it will be easier to take up a free television licence or £100 cash?

Mr. Rooker

The television licence is not really a matter of take-up, because we have passed legislation to enable my Department to give the BBC the names and addresses of people over 75. That is how we are dealing with that. As the House knows, we have identified about 2 million pensioners from our records who we believe may be entitled to income support and are not claiming it. We do not know everything about everybody, which is a good thing in many ways, but the fact is that, within those 2 million, we suspect that there are about 500,000 entitled pensioners, and we will mail them personally—by name—to invite them to make a claim.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

Given that my right hon. Friend has been in the House longer than I have, may I ask him to be as charitable as possible, to dredge his mind and to cite one move that the Tories made in government to undertake a take-up campaign to inform poorer pensioners of their rights?

Mr. Rooker

My right hon. Friend may want to apply for an Adjournment debate on that. The fact is that this is the first time that there has ever been a Government take-up campaign on this scale. Local authorities have done it, as have many hon. Members, but this is a specific, targeted campaign directed at 2 million people, by name, in addition to the television advertisements encouraging others to claim. The campaign is costing a modest amount, about £15 million, but it will get more money quickly to the poorest pensioners who, for various reasons that we all understand, are being missed out. It is long overdue.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

Many pensioners find it difficult to understand the complex world of social security benefits, and their only point of contact is the postmaster or postmistress. Following today's announcement by the Post Office that it has made a loss of £265 million, will the Minister give my pensioners a guarantee that, if they so wish, they will still in future have that point of access, with their post office remaining open? When will the Government stop their attacks on pensioners and their assaults on the Post Office?

Mr. Rooker

In the middle of all that, there was a fair and justifiable point. The fact is that members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, have made it clear on more than one occasion, from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, that after the implementation of the policy announcement—after 2005—it will still be possible for pensioners and other beneficiaries to access their money via the Post Office network.

One of the implications behind the hon. Gentleman's question, especially concerning the rural post offices, is that we should ban people in rural areas from having access to their benefits via their bank account. People are voting with their feet every week and deciding to have their benefit paid via the banking network. If we do nothing to manage the situation, we will lose the Post Office network without understanding why. Because we do not want to do that, we have a policy to ensure that it will not happen.