HL Deb 04 May 2004 vol 660 cc985-7

2.51 p.m.

Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will lay a duty on other departments entering future public spending rounds to consider the implications of their decisions for the Department for Work and Pensions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)

My Lords, in past spending rounds, and in the current one, the Treasury expects government departments to consider the implications of their spending and delivery proposals for all other government departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions.

The 2004 spending review guidance sets out the requirement for departments to discuss proposals with financial implications for other departments with the department in question and secure its agreement before including such proposals in their submission.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. He has indicated that the issue is not a dead letter, but is it a very live letter? When a large regional employer is closed, or when a decision is taken depriving old people of their weekly walk to the post office at a time when we are more concerned with the financial implications of fitness, the Government are passing to the Department of Social Security or the Department for Work and Pensions a cost that it cannot avoid. Should not that be considered always and carefully before the decision is taken?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am sure that I do not need to introduce the noble Earl, Lord Russell, of all people to the delights of DEL and AME. DEL stands for departmental expenditure limits and AME stands for annual managed expenditure, and is that part of expenditure which is demand led. The expenditure about which we are talking here is demand led. If additional expenditure is incurred by the Department for Work and Pensions as a result of decisions by other departments, that expenditure will be met. That is not to say that I condone any particular examples to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may refer of which I have no notice and of which I have no particular knowledge.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, so far as demand-led expenditure is concerned, there is an obvious knock-on effect between activities of the Department of Health and of the Department for Work and Pensions. Is the Minister aware that Norwich Union Healthcare's ongoing survey has estimated that 9 million of the annual 22 million sick notes are suspect? Its survey of 255 GPs also found that those GPs believed that at least a third of sick notes are invalid. Surely this has a knock-on effect on sickness benefit which, of course, calls into question at the very least the Government's statistic on the number of employed.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, as I have no notice of that question, I have no basis on which to challenge the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, puts forward, although they indeed sound extremely suspect to me. However, I repeat that if, as a result of the policies of any other government department, additional burden is put upon the Department for Work and Pensions, that expenditure is protected because it is annually managed expenditure and it is demand led. I very much doubt the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, offers to the House.

Lord Peston

My Lords, why has my noble friend accepted the premise of the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which is that one department's activities place a burden on another? Surely it frequently happens, not least as regards the Treasury, that good economic policies actually lower the burdens on other departments. For example, the great increase in employment and decrease in unemployment has made life very much easier rather than harder for the Department for Work and Pensions.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Indeed, my Lords. That is why the expenditure on unemployment benefit in particular is so much less under this Government than it was under previous governments.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could ask the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to read more carefully the implications of the Question. It refers to the "implications of their decisions". That was intended for good or ill. It is more often for ill, but I do not think that anyone disputes what the noble Lord says; namely, that implications can be good. I just think that people ought to know.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I suppose that I have to be grateful for that although the supplementary question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, certainly went in the opposite direction.