SOCIAL SECURITY AND WIDOWS' BENEFITS (Hansard, 25 June 1974)

§ LORD GARDINER
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, there are no records kept of the number of cases in which benefit is withdrawn, or the woman ceases to claim benefit, 1301 on grounds of cohabitation where special investigation was not involved.
During 1973 the number of cases in which, after special investigation, supplementary benefit was withdrawn, or reduced on grounds of cohabitation, was 3,646, but the central records kept of the results of such investigation do not distinguish between widows and single, divorced and separated women.

§ LORD GARDINER
My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether he does not think that the Ministry ought to keep proper statistics? These are figures which the public are entitled to have. Secondly, in view of his reply, are figures available of the total number of women, whether widows, divorced or separated, or unmarried mothers? If so, could we have them?

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, the only figures available are the figures which I have given. During 1973, the number of cases in which widow's benefit was disallowed on account of cohabitation was 1,113 for National Insurance widow's benefit and 33 for industrial death benefit which, as the noble Lord will realise, is quite different. No records are kept of the number of such widows who are also in receipt of supplementary benefit. This is the difficulty, because the noble Lord's Question refers to supplementary benefit.
With regard to whether the Department ought to keep more effective statistics, I do not think that anybody would disagree with what the noble Lord has said. However, one has to bear in mind that the work involved in analysing the reports of special investigations and carrying out a detailed recording of the matters which the noble Lord has in mind would impose a considerable strain and expense upon the Department. However, I can say to the noble Lord that in future we will give consideration to the keeping of records of special investigations in sufficient detail so that widows can be distinguished from others. I do not think I can go beyond saying that at this stage.

§ LORD GARDINER
My Lords, is it not right that supplementary benefits are the last refuge against destitution, and that when a book is withdrawn and no more supplementary benefits are paid there must be a record at the Ministry 1302 of the woman in question and of the grounds upon which benefit has been withdrawn?

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, that is true, but some of the supplementary benefits are reduced. The benefit is not always withdrawn 100 per cent. Where there are children, certainly for a period a re-assessment is made of the amount of supplementary benefit so that the children do not suffer. However, I should like to give my noble friend the assurance that we, too, feel that there ought to be more adequate records. I hope, therefore, that he will feel able to give us time to look into this matter to see whether or not we can meet the views which he has expressed to-day.

§ LORD POPPLEWELL
My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the difference between widows on supplementary benefit, divorced persons, single persons or any other woman who is involved with supplementary benefit? Why should widows be particularly singled out?

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, widows are not particularly singled out. The Question dealt with widows and I tried to answer on that basis. They are singled out in the Question, but not by the Department.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, can my noble friend say what conditions have to be established before the authorities deduce that there has been cohabitation?

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I am not in a position to give the yardstick, but I think I am right—in fact, I know I am right—in saying that the Department has to satisfy itself that there is a state of cohabitation existing between a man and a woman, and not just a casual affair. If I may put it in this way and if the lawyers will not mind, it is the act of consortium; the act of living together.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, may I put another supplementary? I have in mind the case of a widow who is hard-up, and I should like to ask my noble friend how the authorities distinguish between a man who is cohabiting with her and living in the house, and a man who is merely a lodger.

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, this is part of the difficulty with which the special investigators are faced.

§ LORD AVEBURY
My Lords, is it not a fact that a great many of the rules which are applied by the officers in their investigations to determine whether or not cohabitation exists have leaked from the Department into the national newspapers? So why does the Department continue to withhold the complete set of instructions given to these officers, because if they were published we should all know what criteria were applied.

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I am surprised to learn that there has been a leak to the Press. If this is so it is reprehensible and regrettable. I understood the noble Lord was saying that there had been a leak of information between the Department and the Press, and I should not have thought that was desirable. With regard to the yardstick which is applied, to which the noble Lord referred, I should have to look into that because I am not myself familiar with the document.

§ LORD AVEBURY
My Lords, the noble Baroness asked the noble Lord some detailed questions about what rules were applied, and in answer to me he said that it was reprehensible that this information had leaked out from the Department into the public Press. Does he not appreciate that it is a matter of public concern what questions are put to these women, and how it is ascertained that cohabitation exists, and that it is therefore highly desirable that the full information should be published?

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
I am sorry, my Lords. I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he was referring to the fact that information about some women who had had their allowance withdrawn had been leaked to the Press. I take his point.

§ LORD BLYTON
My Lords, does the Minister not think that the whole process of chasing widows on pension, with the aid of M.I.5, is nauseating, and does he not think that there should be more liberalisation in the Department? As I cast my eyes over the House of Lords I think, He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone".

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, this is a matter for Parliament to deal with, but at the present moment it is laid down very clearly that if it is established that there is cohabitation going on in the case of a widow or some other person who is separated, divorced or single who is drawing supplementary benefit, then the supplementary benefit should be disallowed. But the remedy is in the hands of Parliament.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how many men have had their supplementary benefits withdrawn, when it has been proved that they were living in a house owned by a woman and were partially supported by that woman?

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, the Question deals with widows and I have tried to deal with it on that basis. If the noble Baroness wants to know the position with regard to men, perhaps she, too, would table a Question.

§ LORD SLATER
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he has dealt very ably with the supplementary questions that have been directed against him and the Department which he seeks to represent in this House? The Department has been working under heavy pressure for a very long time, and there are noble Lords assembled within this Chamber, who have also had experience in the other place, who know what has been involved in the cases that have come to them to he directed to the Department and know how they have been dealt with, and every praise ought to be given to the Department for its consideration.