Death Grant (Hansard, 23 January 1984)

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur)
My Lords, the value of the grant has declined by about 82 per cent. since 1967.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Minister for his answer. Would he not agree that the figure he has just given explains why so many old people have a justifiable fear of what they term a pauper's funeral? Would he say, first, what means of assistance there are to relatives, other than widows and widowers on supplementary benefit, to help them meet these rising costs? Secondly, would he say when the Government will be ready to report on what many people would think was long overdue: that is, the future of the death grant?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, a consultative document went out for consultation in March 1982 and replies were received by July 1982. The public response to that document gave no clear support for any of the proposals put forward. As a result, it has been necessary to re-examine the whole situation. The noble Baroness asked when an announcement could be made about the future of the grant. All I can say is that an announcement will be made in due course.
2 As regards help from supplementary benefit for poor families facing funeral bills, the increase in the supplementary benefit single payments limit from £300 to £500 and the other changes in the supplementary benefit capital limits announced in the last Budget will help to ensure that people receiving supplementary benefit are not required to draw on personal savings or other forms of provision towards personal funeral costs. Those on supplementary benefit who are left with responsibility for arranging a funeral but have few savings or resources can already be given special help, and in 1982 some 13,000 families were given single payments toward funeral expenses, at an average level of about £200.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, I asked the Minister what means of assistance in meeting these costs are available to a son or daughter who is not on supplementary benefit.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, that is a question for the consultations which the Government are having at the moment and on which I cannot give a pronouncement.

§ Lord Airedale
My Lords, can the noble Lord answer the noble Baroness's question the other way round, so to speak, and tell the House what the level of the death grant would now be had it been increased in the same proportion as the increase in national insurance contributions since the present grant was fixed?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, in 1967 when the present rate of grant was fixed the national insurance contributions were flat-rated, and since 1975 they have been related to earnings. There have also been changes to and increases in other benefits, so it is not really possible to make a direct comparison in the way that the noble Lord asks. I could perhaps turn his question round, if I may. One could ask how far would national insurance contributions have to increase to restore the value of the death grant, and the answer to that is about 3p a week for the average earner.

§ Lord Airedale
My Lords, may I ask: to restore the death grant to what?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, to restore it to what it was.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the consultative process he mentioned failed miserably, and for four reasons? First, the low cost basis of the proposals pre-empted any real consultation process; secondly, the proposals would have disqualified national insurance contributors from an entitlement; thirdly, the benefit would have been insufficient to help those who would have qualified; and fourthly——

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, Fourthly, it would not have been readily available to those who needed it most? Would he not now accept that the Government and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State ought to be discussing with the Dignity in Death Alliance their very simple alternative proposal that the death grant should be up-rated in line with inflation and should be index-linked, non-means tested and available to everyone, including children and elderly people?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I would not agree with all that the noble Lord says. There are many reasons which have to be taken into consideration by the Government in their consultations on the matter. I am sure the noble Lord and many others of your Lordships also would agree that the most important thing is that those who really need a grant get it. That is something that is also being considered by the Government at the moment.

§ Baroness Jeger
My Lords, does the noble Minister recall that in the consultative document which was put out it was stated that the equivalent value of the 1949 death grant would in 1982 have been £195? Can he tell us what it is now in January 1984? Can he say what practical steps the Government are taking to reopen the consultations which failed so disastrously in 1982?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, on the second part of the noble Baroness's supplementary, consultations are going on between Ministers at the moment, as I hoped I had made clear earlier. As to the cost of restoring the 1949 value of the grant to today's prices, based on the latest figures available the grant would need to be increased to about £210. That would cost about £105 million extra for the year 1983–4.

§ Lord Gridley
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is aware that I, as a Government appointed trustee of the Far East Prisoners of War and Internee Fund, and other trustees are concerned at the level of grants now being made to the widows of former prisoners of war who were forced to work on the Burma-Siam railway? Will the widows be borne in mind along with other considerations which the Government may be thinking about?

§ Lord Glenarthur
Yes, my Lords. I am well aware of the active part that my noble friend plays so far as Far East prisoners of war are concerned. I can assure him that all he says will be taken into account.

§ Lord Diamond
My Lords, will the Minister be a little more forthcoming as to what he means by "in due course"? Is not the essence of this matter that everybody has some concern? Indeed, many people believe that they have an indirect interest in the benefit in question. Is it not right that the Government should hurry up with these consultations which are going on between Ministers and offer us their conclusions, and not merely say "in due course"? As has been said with some considerable authority, in due course we shall all be dead.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I seem to remember hearing various attempts to explain whether "in due course" was the same as "soon", or whether "soon" was the same as "in due course", and I am afraid that I cannot go further than I have said.