| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
State Pension
3. Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the state retirement pension. [15739]
Mr. Lilley: The basic pension is the cornerstone of income in retirement. We remain committed to protecting the value of state pensions, and they will be increased in line with prices from April at a gross cost of £730 million.
Mrs. Winterton: Bearing in mind that pensioners' incomes have risen 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979, will my right hon. Friend advise pensioners to beware of the Opposition's policies, which would undermine savings by allowing inflation to rise, tax private pension funds that had invested in the privatised utilities, and fail to match the Conservative record of uprating each year the state retirement pension by at least as much as price inflation?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend can be reassured. We will give such warnings loud and clear to all the pensioners in this country. What she says is correct. The utilities tax would bear heavily on the pension funds that pay the pensions of retired people. She is right, too, to warn of the past failure and possible future failure of Labour Governments to uprate the basic pension. They did not do so properly in 1976, and it cost pensioners then £1 billion. Pensioners should be warned that the shadow Chancellor recently said:
- "there cannot be an assumption that totals will be automatically adjusted upwards in the event of changes in inflation."
Mr. Denham: Will the Secretary of State condemn every Tory candidate who claims that Labour would cut the basic state pension by £20 a week? Will he condemn that concerted lie campaign, which is designed to create alarm and fear among elderly people, or does he support that disgraceful campaign--yes or no?
Mr. Lilley: I happen to have with me a copy of a letter from the shadow spokesman for social security, which she wrote to me spontaneously. It states:
- "We anticipate . . . a lower level of basic state pension."
- "We would seek the advice of the Government Actuary."
Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I took advice from an expert on pensions--my mother? She is 85 years of age and has just moved up to Lichfield. She first went on the state pension in 1972. She tells me that the worst time for pensions was in 1975 and 1976, when inflation was running at 25 per cent. and the Government cut the Christmas bonus. Can my right hon. Friend tell me which party was in power at that time?
Mr. Lilley: I can certainly remind my hon. Friend--I am sure that his expert mother has reminded him, too--that it was the Labour party which failed to uprate basic pensions at that time, which cost pensioners £1 billion and which is now warning us that, in order to keep within the totals that we have established for Departments, it will not necessarily adjust those totals upwards, in line with inflation.
Habitual Residence Test
4. Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent assessment his Department has made of the operation of the habitual residence test. [15740]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): Our monitoring of the habitual residence test confirms that it is succeeding in its primary purpose of narrowing access to benefit for people who have little or no recent commitment to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Timms: Does the Minister agree that there are continuing problems with the operation of the test, not least with the inconsistent way that it is being applied by different offices? First, does he agree that benefits offices should be encouraged to work as closely as possible with advice agencies to ensure that people attending habitual residence interviews are well informed beforehand as to what they will be asked and how the questions will be presented? Secondly, has the Minister considered the possibility of helping to provide interpreters when interviewees do not speak good English?
Mr. Evans: I am happy to say yes to both the hon. Gentleman's questions. As to the first, the welfare action
rights group in his area of Newham regularly meets the local Benefits Agency representatives to discuss those matters. We are aware of questions about whether the scheme is operating equally in different districts, and that matter has been examined.
Secondly, it is obviously important that interpreters should be provided for those people who require assistance as their command of English is not sufficient, and we shall look into that issue. If the hon. Gentleman has further constituency points to make on the matter, I shall be happy to address them. I have written today to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who has raised similar issues with me.
Mr. John Marshall:
Will my hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of taxpayers find it repugnant that individuals think that they can come to this country, present themselves at a social security office, and receive a cheque that is paid for by the British taxpayers, when those individuals have had no connection with this country for many years?
Mr. Evans:
My hon. Friend is right. We face some difficulty because European Union nationals are entitled to come to this country and, as a matter of legal entitlement before we introduced the habitual residence test, receive the full range of income-related benefits. We introduced the test because it is the one thing that we are allowed to do under European law, and it is embodied in one of the earliest European Union directives, 408/71.
5. Mr. Jon Owen Jones:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that pensioners claim the income support to which they are entitled. [15741]
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt):
The Department and its agencies take extensive action to publicise income support and other benefits that pensioners may choose to claim. Help is there for those who need it.
Mr. Jones:
Clearly, the extensive action that the Minister talks about is completely inadequate. Will he confirm that 1 million pensioners are £14 a week worse off because they do not claim their full entitlement? What effective measures do the Government intend to take in order to deliver their fair and full entitlement to those people who have contributed to this country throughout their lifetime?
Mr. Burt:
A range of effective action can be, and is being, taken. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the campaign that the Benefits Agency ran in January and the document entitled "Pensions and Benefits: a guide for older people". Publicity in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Cardiff includes weekly benefit sessions at one of the community centres, fortnightly benefit advice at one of the hospitals and monthly benefit advice at another. Regular benefit talks are given to community groups and information appears in the local newspaper, of which I have some copies.
We have discovered over the years that, unless we target campaigns specifically, take-up will not increase. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has anything
in mind regarding widespread take-up campaigns--those on his Front Bench have not mentioned it. For the time being, the Benefits Agency is doing extensive work in order to advertise benefits for those who need them.
Mrs. Roe:
Can my hon. Friend confirm that he has received no workable proposals for identifying additional pensioners who are entitled to income support beyond the measures that the Government are taking already? Will he confirm also that, even if it were possible, paying income support to an extra 700,000 pensioners would cost more than £1 billion? Has he received any representations from the Labour party about what other benefits it would cut by £1 billion in order to remain within a fixed budget?
Mr. Burt:
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is often forgotten that more than 1.5 million pensioners already claim some £25 billion. My hon. Friend is correct to say that I have received no workable proposals from Opposition Members regarding a campaign.
Mr. McLeish:
What about the fraud Bill?
Mr. Burt:
That was not workable. Proposals that use the Inland Revenue, which does not have information on savings, for example, will not do the job. Benefits campaigns must be targeted and, in the absence of any workable proposals, Opposition Members are left spouting empty words and offering no sensible ideas about how to bring more people into benefit.
Mr. McLeish:
The Minister's response provides a chilling example of how callously indifferent Ministers are to the plight of Britain's pensioners. Is he not seriously embarrassed that 1 million pensioners in Britain--10 per cent. of the total number of pensioners, or 1,500 pensioners in every constituency--live not on the breadline but below it? Does he not appreciate that that is a blight on Britain's pensioners, who have given so much and are receiving so little from the Government? Will he acknowledge that, in a few weeks' time, a Labour Government will reduce VAT on fuel, provide better health care and start to attack the scandal of Britain in 1997 having 1 million pensioners who are not getting what they are entitled to?
Mr. Burt:
The hon. Gentleman is long on rhetoric but short on any practical proposals. I certainly deny the last part of his claims. Pensioners do not claim for a variety of reasons. It is wrong to suggest that all pensioners who do not claim income support are living below poverty levels; many live with families and enjoy the family life style.
It is noticeable that the hon. Gentleman--for all his wind--does not come up with anything specific to bring more people into benefit. He does not give proper credit to the work done by many information officers at Benefits Agency offices throughout the country, who work hard with pensioners' groups and others. It is about time that we heard a little bit of credit for their honest hard work in trying to do their job.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Surely the Labour party is the same party that, a few moments ago, was complaining about information leaflets being sent to single mothers. Were
Mr. Burt:
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The departmental budget for publicity over the current three-year period is about £84 million. He is right. The Labour party cannot have it both ways: criticising the leaflets and not accepting that we have to get information across to people if benefits provision is to be sensible and good.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |