Social Fund Funeral Payments

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to some of those issues later in my speech, as well as recognising the particular difficulties we have in Northern Ireland when it comes to those choices. The Select Committee did a good bit of work on the application process and the SF200 form, which I will refer to later as well.

The Minister will know that the social fund payment is broken into two categories: what is considered to be a non-discretionary award and what is considered to be a discretionary spend. The Committee has canvassed this issue. The Members I mentioned previously—the hon. Member for South Shields and others—have recognised that the £700 award, which was formulated at a time when it met discretionary spend needs, was frozen in 2003. The Bank of England’s calculator suggests that that £700 is now worth £495.68, yet the costs have not frozen; they have risen exponentially. That figure was set at a time when Government said they would meet the costs, but I am afraid this policy is now compounding the debt and the pressure on families who look to Government for support. That is 13 years of diminished spend, and the cost of discretionary items has risen exponentially, at more than three times the rate of inflation year on year since 2003.

Let us consider what is discretionary. I do not find it comfortable that the provision of a representative of the clergy or an officiant at a ceremony is a discretionary spend. I know that people have different views on faith, but for me it is not a choice. I recognise that there are many in our country who do not live a faithful life but who, when they approach the end, build that relationship for what is to come. I do not believe that that spend—whether it is a faith-based clergyman or someone who will simply officiate at an ordinary funeral—should be discretionary, nor do I believe that the hiring of a place of worship should be. We cannot expect it to be a discretionary cost for people at a time of grief and sorrow to sort out a place aside from their home to welcome family and friends who want to pay their respects to their loved one.

Discretionary cost is also associated with a cremated remains plot or storage space. Cremation is a non-discretionary spend, so its cost is covered; burial is also a non-discretionary spend and interment is covered. Burials cost substantially more than cremations and the Government will cover the cost of interment of a body in a burial, yet providing a plot for ashes or a safe place for them to be kept is non-discretionary. Given that there is a huge saving for the Government in the discretionary element of cremation, the provision of a cremated remains plot or storage space should be moved from non-discretionary to discretionary.

Embalming is a discretionary spend. The Government say a family choose whether a body will be embalmed. It is not required scientifically, but is most important, should a family choose to have an open coffin or to spend time with their deceased loved one. As part of that categorisation of non-discretionary spend, the Government are making the choice more difficult for those in receipt of benefits or who can ill afford it. They are saying, “We will pay £700”—which in no way represents the cost of the non-discretionary items added together; indeed, it has been frozen since 2003 and is now worth less than £500—“but you choose: are you going to use it to have an officiant at a ceremony, to have a place to put the ashes of your loved one, to embalm the body before disposal or to mark their final resting place with a memorial?” It is appropriate to spell out these aspects of the end of life sincerely and earnestly, to illustrate some of the choices that the policy is asking people without sufficient means to make.

In an evidence session during the Select Committee’s inquiry, an official from the Department for Work and Pensions said that, ideally, eligible claimants should know what their entitlement is before a funeral. It is sensible and plausible that people do not go to a funeral director and ask for these discretionary items, amassing a substantial cost that they can ill afford. That is sensible and, when I consider the delay in having a funeral in England and Wales, it is also practical. People may wait two, three or four weeks for a funeral. That is not so in Northern Ireland, where traditionally people are buried two or three days after death. So at a time of sorrow and grief, we not only ask people to come to terms with loss and their inability to provide for their loved one and to make arrangements, contact family and friends, but to contact DWP’s advice line to see whether support is available. Three weeks sounds practical, but three days is less so, yet the constraints are the same across the country. Colleagues from other parts of the country may wish to add their experience, but in Northern Ireland the short time frame does not allow people to do what the DWP official described as ideal.

All this—the question of discretionary or non-discretionary and the cap in 2003—has led to a crisis of funeral poverty in this country. The Local Government Association has highlighted its concern. In 2009-10, there were 2,200 public health funerals, at a cost of £1.5 million to local authorities. In 2010-11, there were 2,900, at a cost of £2.1 million. The BBC survey of all local authorities in this country had a response rate of three quarters. It is estimated that there will be 3,500 public health funerals this year.

We know what they are. Paupers’ funerals have been described as funerals for which there is simply no one to pay, no family support and no ability to give someone a send-off from a loved one, so the state steps in. The number of such funerals has risen exponentially to 3,500 this year. That has led the National Association of Funeral Directors to ask why, if funeral poverty is rising, social fund funeral payments have decreased. The social fund payments of £40 million in 2016 represent a 10.9% decrease from £44 million in the previous year. The number of public health funerals is rising and funeral poverty is rising, yet Government support is falling. With a fall of £4 million between last year and this year, we are returning to 1993 in real terms, when the Government spent £90 million on social fund funeral payments.

Last year, the social fund proudly stated that it had reduced outstanding debt and returned more than £150 million to the Treasury. The number of public health funerals is rising, spend is decreasing and the cost to local authorities and funeral poverty are rising; rather than proudly stating that they are handing £150 million back to the Treasury, the Government have the choice to use the money more appropriately and to provide the support that is needed.

To be fair, the Government gave a timely response to the Select Committee’s report. The Minister has had the chance to consider some of her narrow brief—DWP is not a narrow Department and has many considerations—and today gives her the opportunity to add some meat to the skeletal response and skeletal commitments that were offered.

The Government have talked about dialogue between funeral directors, interested third parties and stakeholders. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says to update the discussions that have been taking place since 2015. We should have an appropriate response from the Government today on how those discussions are progressing without just placing the onus on funeral directors.

There was much in the Select Committee’s report about funeral directors doing this and that. The Government could define what a simple funeral is. There are choices, as I have outlined, about what is discretionary and what is non-discretionary. I will be interested to hear not just what stakeholders, funeral directors and their association are prepared to do, but what the Government are prepared to do.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating this debate and on how comprehensively and eloquently he has introduced it. In my experience as an MP, people do not necessarily want to talk about funerals, but as they get older the issue becomes more of a burden and a worry. We have a new Prime Minister and a new direction in a Government who are not for the privileged few but for the many. This is an opportunity for the Government to take a new approach and relieve this burden from many elderly people—often widows living alone—who are worried about passing on debt to their families. This is a real opportunity, as my hon. Friend said, to have a new, fresh start.

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree entirely. In 2004, six years before I was elected, I was assisting in one of our advice centres. A lady came in and said she had nothing, but that she had been turned down for pension credit. When we looked at the reasons why, we saw she did have something. She had very few savings, but she had a lump sum of £4,000, which brought her total savings above the threshold for pension credit.

I asked her about the £4,000 and her response was, “That’s not mine. That’s Wilton’s.” Wilton is a funeral director in my constituency. For her in 2004, the consequence of doing what the Government asked of her—to take responsibility for herself and to take pride at the end of her life knowing that no one else would have to step in—was to be ineligible for the Government’s pension credit when she needed it most.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Given that we are within the first hour of the debate it is appropriate to thank you, Mr Nuttall, for calling me so early in this session. I have enjoyed every contribution that has been made. In particular, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) had a difficult task in not only presenting his views but doing justice to the petition. That is not something he wrote, but it is appropriate we consider it here this afternoon. I do not disagree with a word said by any of the contributors thus far and because of that I want to build on the contributions that have been made about the soft power that we as a country and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be using to, if not coerce, certainly concentrate the minds of those who can make a change in South Korea to what, we all accept, is a horrendous situation.

It was great to get the Library briefing, which is incredibly detailed and starkly paints the difficulties that we face. This is a $2 billion a year industry in South Korea. It is not just a few restaurants that need to be hidden from public view when people visit for the winter Olympics in two years’ time; there are 20,000 of them in South Korea. There are 9,000 health food stores selling the tonics that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to. This is a massive part of the local economy in South Korea. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether discussions have been had, or could be had, with his colleagues responsible for agriculture or in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to show an alternative income stream for farmers who clearly recognise how lucrative the dog meat trade is in their country and to encourage them—whether diplomatically or economically—to shift their focus and recognise that there is a better way to provide for their people.

Contrary to popular belief the dog meat available for sale in South Korea is not cheap, so although it may have started off as a response to the impoverished conditions of the Korean war, it is not something that remains because people cannot find alternative sources of food—it is a choice, a lucrative choice. If we have a response to make this afternoon, it should be to focus on how we as a country do not just cajole but encourage those involved in the dog meat trade—whatever motivates them—to change their tack, change their focus and recognise that they should inject a better form of welfare to the meat industry they are involved in.

Given that we do not have a business or agriculture representative from Government here, it is appropriate that we recognise that—although the dog meat trade is an important debate and 102,000 people signed the petition nationally so that we would consider it here today—the Foreign Office and South Korea have some bigger issues on their plates at the moment. South Korea, only a day ago, was threatening to declare nuclear war with North Korea following a test-fired missile within the last week. That just shows how difficult the situation is within that region of our world and how difficult the politics are within the region from a Foreign Office perspective.

Although I recognise the Minister will give us his commitment today that he will take the issue of dog meat seriously, it is incumbent upon us as representatives of this United Kingdom Parliament to recognise that some issues—even though this is an important one—are more acute for South Korea, North Korea and the international world at large. Although I know the Minister will give us a commitment of his tenacity on this issue, we need to recognise that this is one of many that require a focus with South Korea.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful speech and the important points he is making. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) on initiating this debate. My hon. Friend mentioned soft power and ensuring that we continue to keep this matter to the fore of people’s minds, despite the other very acute issues that are out there.

We accept that South Korea, the UK Government and other Governments are dealing with other grave matters, but is it not important—the Olympics come round every four years as has been said—that we do not allow these issues to come round now and again, but that we continue to raise them in a supportive and positive way through engagement with the South Korean Government? As parliamentarians, our duty is to continue to raise these matters with our own Ministers and on the international bodies that we are represented on.