House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Jun 1995

Hansard

Monday 19 June 1995

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

SOCIAL SECURITY

Disabled People

1. Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking to tackle discrimination against disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [27598]

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): The Government's Disability Discrimination Bill will provideffective protection for disabled people against discrimination in employment, access to goods, services and premises, transport and education. The Bill, unrivalled in the history of Government provision for disabled people, has already received the approval of the House and is currently being considered in another place.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and his Department on their excellent work in this field. Does he agree that education is important in raising public awareness? Furthermore, many public body facilities, such as the British Rail station at Erith, at which it is impossible for disabled people to get on to the London-bound platform, have to

Column 2

be brought into line. Public bodies must provide access for disabled people to railway stations, and Erith station must be one of the first to have such provision.

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the continuing importance of education and persuasion. Even after the Disability Discrimination Bill becomes law, it will be important for people in all political parties to join together and lead the nation in showing why it is important to combat discrimination against disabled people. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the difficulties that disabled people often face when using public transport. I assure him that the transport infrastructure will be covered by the Bill, which will also contain the power to set minimum access standards for public transport vehicles.

Mr. Barnes: The unrivalled Bill on disability is not that of the Government but the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which has had solid support in the House. Will the Government at least seriously consider introducing a disability rights commission, in line with that proposed in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, through their measure? That would start to turn it into far more reasonable legislation and give all disabled people hope for the future because, in time, that commission would see that the Government's Bill was brought into line with the principles in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman's Bill--he knows my view on it after our eight Committee sittings--is confusing, unfair and inflexible. The Government measure is clear and fair to others, and it will command the support of the nation in bringing discrimination against disabled people to an end.

Mr. Tredinnick: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Disability Discrimination Bill, which is in another place, will do much for schoolchildren? Does he agree that it will oblige education providers to make special provision for disabled people at school and university?

Column 3

Mr. Hague: Yes. The Bill will strengthen the Education Act 1993 by further improving provision for disabled pupils. In addition, the Government have announced a new £10 million fund for education providers to improve physical accessibility at schools.

Mortgage Interest

2. Mrs. Liddell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the effect of his proposals to alter the present system of help with mortgage interest payments under income support on the number of repossessions. [27600]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Current income support provision is costly yet fails to cover the majority of people who fall into difficulty with their mortgage payments. The new proposals encourage the provision of comprehensive, high-quality mortgage protection for all new home owners should they suffer a loss of income. This should help to reduce the number of repossessions.

Mrs. Liddell: The Secretary of State is being most unreasonable in this matter. Does he agree with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers, which have already pointed to the likely dramatic increase in repossessions? If he is not prepared to listen to the common sense of Opposition Members who are concerned about repossessions, will he at least respond to the fear on his Back Benches about the consequences of these moves for those who are already suffering the effects of negative equity?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is entirely mistaken. The Association of British Insurers has said the complete opposite of what she has said. It has said that virtually everybody who can obtain a mortgage should be able to obtain insurance. As a result, there should in due course be a reduction in repossessions and in the number of people who fall into arrears.

Mrs. Roe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to a recent survey in the Mortgage Finance Gazette , two thirds of the building societies polled said that they are planning to provide block insurance for their members and that 60 per cent. of those will provide it free? Does that not show that it is not only the Skipton building society but also many others that are likely to provide free unemployment insurance cover for their borrowers?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was very interesting to see the reaction of the Labour Benches when the survey and the news which it brought forward were brought to their attention. They were shocked at the good news, because what is good news for home owners is bad news for Labour.

Ms Lynne: Does the Secretary of State not understand that there is genuine concern that those who have been encouraged to buy their homes could, because of the cut in income support for mortgage benefit, face homelessness? Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether he has fully thought through all the implications of the policy? Whatever he says at the Dispatch Box, I do not think that he has.

Mr. Lilley: I can, of course, give the hon. Lady that assurance. We are consulting about it with the help of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We have had a very

Column 4

good response from the insurers, and the evidence is that the building societies will follow the excellent example set by the Skipton building society. However, I find it a bit rich for the sole representative of the Liberal party here present to pose as being interested in home owners when her party is actively contemplating abolishing mortgage interest tax relief.

Mr. Congdon: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to reduce the £90 billion a year spent on social security? Is it not right that those who are acquiring an asset that they will use and benefit from for their lifetimes should contribute towards insuring it rather than expect other taxpayers to bail them out?

Mr. Lilley: It is certainly absolutely right that we should try to move from a system which, at present, leaves 70 per cent. of people with mortgages, who may find themselves unemployed or without an income, uncovered by the existing state system to one where all new home owners have protection and cover against the risk of losing their jobs. The extraordinary complacency of the Labour party, which had a debate on the subject and revealed that it had no policy to help those 70 per cent. will, I think, be recognised as a letdown to home owners.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State hold to the estimate--rather optimistic, I fear--referred to by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) that a minimum of 40 per cent. of home owners will have to meet a significant additional cost to have insurance cover in the private market? Does he endorse that estimate? Has he noted the rather endearing, touchingly loyal, advice from the Secretary of State for Employment that the problem for the Tory party will be solved if it pulls up its socks? Would not dropping a plan for mortgage interest payments, which would add greatly to the uncertainty in the housing market, be an absolutely excellent contribution to that rather odd exercise?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman, who had the opportunity to tell us what Labour party policy is, tacitly criticises us because there may be some small cost to 40 per cent. of home owners in getting the protection that everybody believes they should have when taking out a new mortgage, and ignores the fact that his party proposes to leave 70 per cent. of them without any cover at all. The other day, he disowned his party's housing spokesman, who had at least offered to do something for that 70 per cent., but at the expense of abolishing mortgage interest tax relief.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good to see a split among the members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, and that those building societies that remain neutral look as though they have an interest in trying to help people not only to buy homes but to keep them after they have contracted to buy them, and that that example should be followed, not criticised, by the banks?

Mr. Lilley: I am not one to rejoice in splits in any direction. I thought the correspondence from the chairman of Skipton building society was very interesting. In one respect, he is in agreement with the chairman of the Cheltenham and Gloucester, who himself a little while ago said there was no need for building societies to raise interest rates--which they did- -because there was an

Column 5

ample profit level. That means that they will have the means to provide cover without undue cost to home owners.

Absent Parents

3. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken in respect of those absent parents who as well as contributing to the upkeep of their absent children have negative equity in the housing they occupy. [27601]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The vast majority of absent parents have their housing costs taken fully into account under existing child support rules. The problem of negative equity may affect parents other than those who have separated but we have no evidence of its being a significant problem in relation to child support.

Mr. Gunnell: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that financial tensions often give rise to marital tensions? Would he have a different answer if he were considering the specific case of a person whose negative equity was in the original family home and who, when that home was sold, crystallised that equity as a debt and is now paying that debt on behalf of himself and his former partner? Would that payment be taken into account in assessing his contribution to a CSA payment?

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman has written to me about those circumstances; a reply is being signed and will be waiting for him after Question Time. The circumstances that he describes are slightly unusual because, in most cases where there is negative equity, the property would not be sold and one party would remain in it. In that case, there would be extensive protection. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, the debt would not be a housing cost as such. It could, however, be construed as a debt of the relationship. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Child Support Bill that is currently going through Parliament will provide the opportunity to consider such debts as a departure from the maintenance formula.

Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend stay true to the principle that parents are financially responsible for their children and that that responsibility comes before almost every other responsibility unless the parents do not have the financial wherewithal, in which case the state should step in? Will my hon. Friend take all possible steps to ensure that the parent with care and control of the child receives a reasonable sum from the absent parent, who is often using every possible means to avoid paying for the child that he has left behind?

Mr. Burt: Yes. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He is right to say that the principle that parents should maintain their children rather than leave it to the taxpayer to do so is at the heart of the Child Support Agency. It is not often realised that more than 70 per cent. of absent parents who have been asked to pay by the agency this year were not previously paying any regular maintenance. Given that 95 per cent. of parents with care exist on benefits, it is time that people appreciated that there is another side to the child support story. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it so clearly.

Column 6

State Pension

5. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received over the state pension. [27604]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): Since the beginning of this year, Ministers have received a number of pieces of correspondence from organisations, Members of Parliament and members of the public, covering all aspects of policy on the state pension.

Mr. Winnick: I am not sure what the Minister means by "pieces of correspondence", if I heard the phrase correctly. Is he aware that the National Pensioners Convention, which represents many organisations for retired people, was deeply disappointed by the response that it received from Ministers, including him? Is he further aware that millions of pensioners who are living in or near poverty believe, with justification, that they have been swindled by the Government during the past 16 years? They could not care less who leads the Government; they want decent policies for pensioners, and they have every right to demand them.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Under the Conservative Government, pensioners' incomes have increased almost as much every year as they did during the entire period of the previous Labour Government. I met representatives of the National Pensioners Convention in August last year. We had a constructive and helpful meeting, and I was left with no sense that they had the reaction that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the whole point of the state pension that it is the foundation stone on which people provide for their old age? Is it not a fact that, under the Conservative Government, most people do not have to rely on the state pension as their sole income because more than 20 million people are now members of occupational pension schemes and can look forward to a far better old age than would have been provided by the Government supported by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. He has concentrated on people at the upper end of the income range. They are important, but it is also interesting to note that the proportion of pensioners in the bottom decile has fallen dramatically under this Government. In 1979, 31 per cent. of pensioners were in the bottom decile; now, 9 per cent. of them are in the bottom decile after housing costs--an important improvement.

Mr. Ingram: Does the Minister agree with the assessment made in December 1993 by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), that the value of a state pension scheme under current Government policy would be worth a nugatory amount in the coming century? Coupled with the massive reduction announced by the Government in state earnings-related pension scheme entitlement, does that not show that the Government are prepared to increase pensioner poverty, in addition to the 1.5 million pensioners who already receive income support?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I am a little surprised at the hon. Gentleman. First, my right hon. Friend did not say that. Secondly, our policy is to ensure that the state retirement

Column 7

pension remains the bedrock of pensioners' incomes and that it will be increased in terms of prices year by year. If the state retirement pension becomes a smaller proportion of pensioners' incomes, it is because, under the prosperity introduced by the Government, their other income is growing so fast. That is why pensioners' incomes have gone up by more than those of the rest of the country as a group.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating John Cuckney on the award given to him in the recent honours list? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a suitable reward for the man who rescued the Maxwell pension fund? Does he also agree that pensions in this country are better funded for the next century than are those anywhere in the continent of Europe, due to the importance of our occupational pension schemes?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. I and, I am sure, the entire House would wish to pay particular tribute to Sir John, now Lord, Cuckney for his amazing achievement in making secure the future of Maxwell pensioners. I should like to put on record my gratitude, and that of the entire House, to Lord Cuckney.

Arcola Street Social Security Office

6. Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to visit Arcola street social security office to discuss the payment of benefits. [27605]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so

Ms Abbott: Is the Minister aware of the recent Public Accounts Committee report which revealed that the benefits of 266,000 claimants, out of a total of 5 million, were underpaid to the tune of £76 million? What will he do to ensure that the Benefits Agency does not penalise the poorest in our society by that sort of inefficiency, and when will he make the actual take-up of benefits a target for the Benefits Agency?

Mr. Evans: Ministers are of course aware of the Public Accounts Committee report. The Arcola street social security office has met all the main targets apart from, as the hon. Lady very properly mentions, those on income support accuracy. Our principal difficulty with income support accuracy statistics involves the issue of mortgage interest rates and their variation. That is why, with the agreement of those involved, we are introducing a standard rate that will be simpler to administer and that will lead to a much more satisfactory position.

Family Policy

7. Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which minister is responsible for the co-ordination of family policy within his Department. [27606]

Mr. Burt: Although overall policy co-ordination is, of course, the responsibility of the Secretary of State, I have responsibility for responding on general family issues in the Department.

Mr. Soley: Is the Minister aware that almost everyone outside the House who is concerned about family policy and the enormous impact that it could have on the welfare of our society, if we got it right, take the view that the

Column 8

Government do not have a real family policy and that there is virtually no effective co-ordination between Departments? If he believes that that is not correct, will he put out a statement saying who is responsible for what and what is the structure of co-ordination?

Mr. Burt: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Just about every Government Department handles policies that are of direct relevance to families, and individual Departments work closely together on matters that are common to them. A number of regular meetings to consider issues that impact on the family are held through, for example, the ministerial committee on home affairs and the ministerial sub-committee on women's issues. The whole of Whitehall is concerned about co-ordination of those policies. Such co-ordination does take place. The hon. Gentleman's plea for greater co-ordination is not falling on deaf ears. The work of each Department is complex and involves families in many different ways. The work is going on, even though the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree with Cardinal Hume that the nuclear family is the bedrock of our society? Although a family who are unfortunate enough not to have both parents must be given help, basically we are aiming, as a party and as a Government, to support the family, and that is the right aim to have.

Mr. Burt: I agree with my hon. Friend. The family is an integral part of the United Kingdom. We spend a lot of time concentrating on the income that goes into families, but we have spent rather too little time considering the structure of families and the damage that has been done over the past 20 or 30 years, with the changing structure of families and the pressure that is put on the relationships that keep families together. Anything that can focus both the mind of the House and the mind of the public at large on the importance of those relationships and the importance of families is a good thing. I wish that the ideal of a particular family type--that is, marriage--as the best basis for raising children would also be in the mind of the Church of England as it considers its conclusions to its report.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Then perhaps the Minister would like to consider the position of families, many of them old-age pensioner couples, who find themselves required to find extra money for their own parents because of the Government's policy of moving an increasing number of geriatric patients out of the health service and dumping them in the community without proper support. What kind of family policy is that, pray?

Mr. Burt: If I remember rightly, the change to community care was welcomed by the vast majority of local authorities, which competed keenly with Government to get the responsibility to look after elderly people. Substantial Government money has been put in to ensure that local authorities live up to those obligations; in many cases, they do.

Fraud

8. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to reduce social security fraud. [27607]

Column 9

Mr. Lilley: My Department has been developing a comprehensive strategy to combat fraud, moving from reliance primarily on detection to a much greater reliance on prevention and deterrence. It is devoting increasing resources to achieving this end.

Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with social security expenditure now by far the largest component of all Government expenditure, it is doubly important to maintain public confidence in the system by ensuring that every possible measure is taken to reduce and to prevent fraud? Will my right hon. Friend use the opportunities presented by new information technology to carry forward the struggle to prevent and deter fraud?

Mr. Lilley: I can assent to both my hon. Friend's propositions. Fraud is a matter that gives rise to great public concern, and it is right that we should do all in our power to combat it. That undoubtedly means taking advantage of modern information technology and data-matching processes, which is part of my strategy.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State confirm that about 10 million additional national insurance numbers that are not attached to individuals are floating around the system and that, last year, 30 million national insurance accounts neither had contributions paid to them nor credits made to them? Does he accept that, with a social security budget of £90 billion, it would be inconceivable, in view of what we know about City fraud and financial fraud, for there not to be the most sophisticated gangs operating against the social security budget? What action does the Secretary of State intend to take to protect that part of the budget, and how does he answer the charge that, in this most important of areas, he is soft on fraud and soft on causes?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is probably the only person who thinks that I am soft on fraud. If I am honest, he is the only Labour Member who is not soft on fraud. None the less, he should not give the impression that national insurance numbers are "floating around", as he put it, because of fraud. There are national insurance numbers that no longer have people in this country attached to them simply because the people concerned are abroad. In other cases, there is a period of some months after death before probate is got through, so the number exists in the meantime. We want to tighten up on this issue so that we can make better use of national insurance numbers to combat fraud. The phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not the result of fraud.

Incapacity Benefit

10. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had with regard to the incapacity benefit. [27609]

Mr. Hague: I have received a number of letters about incapacity benefit. This major reform was introduced because, when the nation's health was improving, the number of people claiming invalidity benefit doubled.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that, last year, the Government spent £7 billion on invalidity benefit--more than the total sum spent on further and higher education? Will he therefore join me in welcoming the new incapacity

Column 10

benefit, which will control that spending and ensure that only those who are genuinely incapable of working will receive benefit?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. Reform of the system was vital to ensure that benefit went to the people that it was intended for. Without that reform, expenditure would have grown at an unsustainable rate. That is the reality that the Government have faced up to and which the Opposition are unwilling to confront.

Ms Eagle: Will the Minister comment on the distress that some of the questions on the incapacity benefit form are causing my constituents and many other people, especially questions such as "Does your bladder work?" for which they are asked to tick the yes or no box? Those who drew up the questionnaire did not even have the decency to put "Private and Confidential" on the top. My constituents are having to answer questions on things about which they feel embarrassed, knowing that there is not even any confidentiality in the processing of the form. Will the Minister reconsider the design of the form to take account of some of those difficulties?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Lady must recognise that the form is an opportunity for individuals to express their opinion about whether they are incapable of work and to give their own account of the difficulties that they face and any conditions that they have. Many of them will also have a medical examination to make a further assessment and many of them will find that their GPs are asked for their opinions. The hon. Lady would be the first to come to the House and complain if we did not ask individuals for their opinions. The information is not publicly available. There is no question of distributing such information in the public domain; she need have no worries about its confidentiality.

Mr. Luff: On the subject of the medical test, will my hon. Friend confirm that many GPs will welcome these changes? They will no longer have to act as gatekeepers for long-term incapacity benefit, a role which many of them greatly disliked.

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. Many GPs have welcomed the changes because, with the best will in the world, in the past, their decisions about benefit produced haphazard and inconsistent results. That was one of the principal problems with the old system, and we have removed it from the new system.

Mr. Bradley: Has the Minister received representations from individuals who are terminally ill or from groups which represent them? I am sure that he remembers accepting the Labour amendment which will allow the higher rate of incapacity benefit to be paid to terminally ill people at 28 weeks instead of 52 weeks. Will he ensure that all the regulations allow for all linked benefits, including the Christmas bonus, to be paid to terminally ill people at 28 weeks instead of their having to wait for 52 weeks, so that they receive the maximum amount of benefits at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman knows that the exemptions from the test provide for people with severe conditions, which will include people who are terminally ill. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that any commitment that we have made is not being met, I will certainly look at it. At the moment, I am not aware of any such instances.

Column 11

National Insurance

11. Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to meet the chief executive of the Contributions Agency to discuss national insurance contributions. [27610]

Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with Mrs. Faith Boardman, chief executive of the Contributions Agency, to discuss a wide range of issues.

Mr. French: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Contributions Agency, will he ask her why the tests to determine whether an individual is employed or self-employed are sometimes applied differently by the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue? Does he accept that the tests ought to start off being the same and be applied consistently? Unnecessary confusion arises when the Inland Revenue accepts individuals as being self-employed while the Contributions Agency says thst they are employed. Will he bring measures to bear to ensure consistency?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's question. My Department and the Inland Revenue have a common approach to employment status. Where one person is described as employed by one department, that judgment is normally accepted by the other department. That is intended to reduce burdens on businesses and on employees, and in almost every case it has that effect. If my hon. Friend would care to contact me about any individual cases that he might have in mind, I shall be pleased to take them up.

Mr. Flynn: Why are the Government planning to reduce the value of employees' and employers' contributions from 18.25 per cent. of median wages to 14. per cent. in the next century, while allowing the value of the basic state pension to fall? The pension has already fallen from 20 per cent. of average male wages in 1979 to 15 per cent. now, and it will be 10 per cent. in 2020. Is that not an example of the Government trying to drive people into poor value private pensions and away from a good value national insurance scheme, the running costs of which are a mere 5 per cent.? In private pensions, the cost of administration, commissions and profit is 50 per cent. Is that not very poor value for future pensioners?

Mr. Arbuthnot: No. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening to some of the answers that I gave earlier. The state pension, as a proportion of earnings, is falling because other people's earnings and occupational pensions are going up so fast. One of the reasons for the prosperity of this country is that so many people have opted out of the state earnings- related pension scheme into private, funded occupational pension schemes. The result of that is that we now have more money set aside in occupational pension schemes in this country than in the whole of the rest of the European Union put together. We are in a very good position indeed.

Benefit Reductions

13. Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have had their benefit reduced as a result of adjudication officers ruling that they are not available for work because their homes are remote from work opportunities. [27612]

Column 12

Mr. Roger Evans: None in the terms of the question asked. Benefit can be refused if a person imposes restrictions on his or her availability for work and has no reasonable prospect of securing employment. That is a different situation from a person being in circumstances that impose their own restrictions. No one should be refused benefit purely on the grounds of where he or she lives.

Mr. Ainger: That answer runs contrary to the evidence from my constituent in Rhosfach near Maenclochog, whose income support was suspended at the beginning of this year. The reason given in its evidence by the Department of Employment to the appeal tribunal was: "Unless she moves to a less remote area or obtains her own transport it is difficult to see what work she could take." That is contrary to what the Minister has just told the House. Is it not true that the way in which the rules are being applied discriminates against people in remote areas where there is virtually no public transport and against those who do not have their own personal transport?

Mr. Evans: No. The rules have remained unchanged since 1955. I am aware of the case of another constituent of the hon. Gentleman, in respect of whom he has written to me. A review has taken place and it has been agreed that benefits should be payable. I have had no specific notice of the particular constituent whom the hon. Gentleman now mentions, but I can assure him that the guidance that has been issued to adjudicating officers has been clear and in the same terms for some considerable period. If people impose conditions, that is their own choice. If the adjudicating officer is satisfied that they have done so, there may be grounds for refusing benefit, but no one is to be denied benefit simply because he or she happens to live in a beautiful, rural and remote part of the hon. Gentleman's lovely constituency.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend ask the adjudicating officers to examine the case of two of my constituents who live in a beautiful part of Todmorden? They went to a remote area of the United States for 11 months and returned to find themselves totally out of benefit.

Mr. Evans: As far as I can recall, my hon. Friend has not given me details of that particular case. It sounds as though the difficulty would seem to be the issue of habitual residence, which is a different matter.

Old Age Pensions

14. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met a group of pensioners' representatives to discuss the level of old age pensions and other entitlements. [27614]

Mr. Arbuthnot: During the passage of the Pensions Bill, which is currently before the House, Ministers have had many meetings, both formal and informal, with pensioners' representatives and organisations.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not a scandal that, at a time when pensioners have been robbed blind by the Government--they lost up to about £20 a week when the Government changed the system of paying pensions in relation to wages and prices--a few thousand Lloyd's names have been given £2.8 billion in tax relief? If as much as £2.8 billion is in the country, is it not high time for that money

Column 13

to go to hard-pressed pensioners and not to Tory Back Benchers who have been saved from bankruptcy and financial ruin?

Next Section

Home Page