| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Pensions (Earnings Link)
6. Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): What plans he has to re-link the calculation of the state old-age pension with average earnings. [63191]
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): As I announced in my statement on 15 December, the basic state pension will remain a contributory non-means-tested benefit, uprated, as we promised, at least in line with prices.
Mr. Corbyn: Does not my right hon. Friend understand that many pensioners are rightly angry that the Tory Government broke the link with earnings in 1980 and that pensioners have subsequently lost at least £25 a week from their state pension? Does he accept that means-tested benefits and private pensions are more expensive to administer and less secure for pensioners? Is not the best way to raise the living standards of the oldest people in our society to raise the basic state pension in line with earnings, as the previous Labour Government did, to ensure that we eliminate poverty among the elderly?
Mr. Darling: No, I do not accept that. Over the past few years, in addition to the basic state pension, many more pensioners have had rights to occupational pensions, private pensions and so on. If we were to uprate the basic state pension in line with earnings, in 2010 the cost would be £11 billion. That would do little for the poorest pensioners, while giving money to people who might not need it that much. As I made clear in my statement last year, our strategy is to do far more for poorer pensioners, who would have retired on benefits had it not been for the change of policy that I announced. As a result of our proposals, those who earn less than £9,000 will double the rate at which they accrue a pension. That is a better use of public funds. It will do far more for poorer people, who will see a real benefit and enjoy a decent retirement when they reach that stage.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): Can the Secretary of State confirm that, so modest and, indeed, so feeble are his proposals for pensions, that by 2050 there will be 8 million pensioners eking out an existence on means-tested income support?
Mr. Darling: I do not accept that. Indeed, the pension proposals that I set out at the end of last year have been quite widely welcomed. The object of the exercise was to
ensure that people who had worked throughout their lives would retire on a pension above income support. That is not the case under the present policies, which we inherited and the hon. Gentleman supported. The Government's proposals mean that most people who work throughout their life will be able to enjoy a retirement in which they will have a decent income to enjoy the years that lie ahead of them.Pensioners (Poverty)
7. Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): What measures he has taken to reduce poverty among pensioners. [63192]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have reduced VAT on fuel and introduced winter fuel payments to help pensioners with their heaviest quarterly fuel bill.
As my right hon. Friend has said, we announced last month in the pensions Green Paper that, from April, we will introduce a new minimum income guarantee for pensioners of at least £75 a week for single people and £116.60 for couples.
Mr. Baker:
I hear what the Minister says, but is he aware that many pensioners in my constituency--in Seaford, Polegate and other places--genuinely doubt the Government's commitment to dealing with poverty among pensioners? Will he look seriously at Liberal Democrat proposals to increase the basic pension by £5 for those aged over 80 and by £3 for those aged over 75? Does he understand that my constituents want a fair deal for pensioners from the Government?
Mr. Timms:
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman about the Government's commitment. We made it absolutely clear in our manifesto that we would give priority to the poorest pensioners because that is the group which requires the most urgent action. The minimum income guarantee allows us to concentrate the extra help on those pensioners and offers to those on income support a substantial increase in their income from next April. We could not have achieved that if we had used the resources on the basic pension instead.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Given the importance of avoiding or reducing poverty among carers who retire, will the proposed carer's pension take the form of a funded personal pension--which could be portable and flexible so that, when the circumstances of the carer changed, the value of the pension could change accordingly--or will it simply be a state-funded addition to the carer's pension?
Mr. Timms:
It will be provided within the state second pension. We have proposed that carers will be credited with contributions so that, in effect, they will gain about £1 a week in pension for each year of caring that they undertake. It will not be a funded scheme, but it is a huge step forward for carers, which has been widely welcomed and is long overdue.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford):
On behalf of those on the Opposition Front Bench, I warmly congratulate the Minister on his promotion.
Perhaps, under pressure from Conservative Members, the Government are at last making a little progress, given that the Secretary of State has at least half acknowledged to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) that means testing can be extremely damaging and extremely unfair. In that case, one might reasonably ask why the Government do nothing but extend its application to bereavement benefits, incapacity benefit, the minimum income guarantee and even to fuel payments and so forth.
Does the Minister realise that the present system is so perverse that, if he were an independent financial adviser who suggested that people on small earnings should take out a personal pension or save money where the return would be substantially negated by the loss of means-tested benefits, he would be liable for criminal prosecution for mis-selling?
Mr. Timms:
I enjoyed that question. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations on behalf of those on the Opposition Front Bench and I can reassure him that the progress that we are making is not as a result of pressure from him and his colleagues, although it is substantial.
We acknowledged in the Green Paper that, under the present system, some of those who qualify for the minimum income guarantee achieve no benefit from their savings and that some people with modest second pensions do not qualify for the minimum income guarantee at all. A range of measures could help, such as some form of disregard on pensioners' income. In the Green Paper, we asked for people's views on the best way in which we can help. We want to give better rewards to savers and, unlike the last Government, we aim to present proposals--in this Parliament--to achieve that end.
8. Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West):
What representations he has received about his plans to reform benefits for people with disabilities. [63193]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley):
Consultation closed on Friday 8 January. Two hundred and eighty-three responses have been received and are being analysed. Forty-seven of those responses came from Members of Parliament--including the Back-Bench Member for City of York!--but I assure the House that all will receive equal consideration.
Mr. Thomas:
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved elevation.
My hon. Friend will know from his own constituency experience that what many disabled people want is the opportunity to work. In meetings that I have held with disabled constituents, what has consistently come across is the often unavoidable additional cost that they would incur in obtaining work. I realise that it is early in my hon. Friend's term of office, but will he tell us what he intends to do about the problem?
Mr. Bayley:
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind congratulations.
The Government's policy is that work, for those who can work, is the best provider of welfare. We are removing obstacles to work for disabled people by introducing the 12-month linking rule and other measures, such as the disabled persons tax credit, to make it easier for disabled people to obtain employment. We are also working with the Department for Education and Employment on the £195 million new deal, and on creating a single gateway to provide a single point for advice on benefits and employment opportunities.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East):
I wish the Minister every success in his new post. Will he take seriously the real concern, alarm and anger felt by disabled people whose benefits are being cancelled on review? During my weekly surgery on Saturday, I was visited by a woman and her child, who has only one small finger on each hand and one small toe on each foot. The woman had been told that there was no need for any disability living allowance-related provision of any sort.
The Government have announced that they will try to save £750 million on disability benefits. Will the Minister genuinely consider the problem, and recognise that many disabled people are greatly alarmed by the cancellation of benefits for what they see as no good reason?
Mr. Bayley:
The Government are addressing the problem, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear a few minutes ago. Replacing the benefit integrity project will create a fairer system for assessing benefits. It will allow benefits to rise in appropriate cases, as well as allowing them to fall, as happened under the benefit integrity project.
Mr. David Lock (Wyre Forest):
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion.
When my hon. Friend considers benefits for disabled people, will he pay particular attention to the position of medical staff employed by the Department of Social Security? The anger of a number of my constituents whose benefits have been removed is shared by the general practitioner who has treated them year after year and knows their condition in detail, only to find that a doctor who has assessed them for perhaps 15 minutes has decided that they can do far more than they actually can. It may even be that a disabled person was too ashamed to admit the extent of his or her disability, or that the doctor happened to catch that person on a good day. In many instances, people can do a certain amount on one day, but much less on other days. When reforming the benefit integrity project, will my hon. Friend give thought to the key liaison between GPs and those doctors who see claimants on a one-off basis?
Mr. Bayley:
I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations.
The Government are aware of the problem and are considering it. My hon. Friend should be aware, however, that a GP may view his patients' disabilities in a different light from the doctor employed by the Benefits Agency, who has a responsibility to establish, on medical grounds, whether a person is entitled to the benefits that he is claiming. That is the basis on which decisions are made.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just pointed out, it is our intention to ensure that the right decision is made as often as possible first time.
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead):
May I congratulate the Minister on his promotion to the Front Bench, although I should perhaps warn him that, at the rate the revelations are appearing in the newspapers, his rise may be even more meteoric than he expects?
One of the key features of the Government's plans to reform disability benefits is a cut in the number of people who receive severe disablement allowance. Today, of those receiving that benefit who qualified after its introduction in 1984, more than two thirds qualified at the age of 20 or over, yet in future, no one aged 20 or over will qualify to receive the benefit because the Government say that, at that age, they will have had the opportunity to see whether work is a realistic option for them.
Does the Minister accept that that would hit those disabled people in their early 20s who are still students or in training? Will he raise the age threshold to 25 to ensure that at least those young disabled people in higher education or training who are preparing themselves for the world of work are not hit or betrayed by that particular cut in disability benefits?
Mr. Bayley:
I thank the hon. Lady for the kind remarks at the start of her question. She will be aware that many people have made representations to the Department on the disability reform proposals. Consultation closed on Friday.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |